Subject: SASL WG status, 10/15

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:49:46 -0400

I think we need new due dates on some of these items.

Nico, Chris, and Sam, has there been any progress on the items with
your names on them?  Can you estimate when they will be done?  Thanks.

WG Charter - milestones needed - DONE (in IETF review)

RFC 4422bis - review needed - WG

RFC 4422 implementation reports - need response summary - Kurt
  - Due 9/30

RFC 4013bis - I-D needed - Kurt - 9/30 - dropped from WG

CRAM-MD5 - resolve pending items from Frank: adding Simon's PLAIN/CRAM
  comparison and tying to saslprep revision; track resolution - WG

digest-to-historic - mostly done, awaiting SCRAM

GS2 - Awaiting SCRAM issue resolution

SCRAM:
  * PBKDF2 iteration counts - Nico?
  * channel binding - Nico?
  * LDAP storage of auth info
	text needed for WG consideration - Chris? - 9/30
  * make equivalent to a GS2 mech
	text needed for WG consideration - Sam/Nico?- 9/30

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:01:52 +0100

>  * PBKDF2 iteration counts - Nico?
I took care of this, Nico doesn't need to do anything.

>  * channel binding - Nico?
Nico, can you please review draft-newman-auth-scram-06.txt and tell us 
if the text on channel binding use is correct/complete?

>	text needed for WG consideration - Chris? - 9/30
I will post a separate draft on this.

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:33:04 -0700

> RFC 4422 implementation reports - need response summary - Kurt

Now that I have Alexey's response, I'll put this together.   I likely  
will be able to consider any additional responses submitted to the  
list (or directly to me) by week's end...

-- Kurt

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:41:04 -0500

> I took care of this, Nico doesn't need to do anything.

Thanks :)

> if the text on channel binding use is correct/complete?

Will do.

Is this I-D supposed to take into account the SCRAM-as-GS2-mech
discussion?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:57:40 +0100

>Is this I-D supposed to take into account the SCRAM-as-GS2-mech
No, the draft predates GS2 discussion.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:53:09 -0500

> No, the draft predates GS2 discussion.

Hmm.  Perhaps then it would be better to suggest changes to make it
match the discussion.

IIRC we never selected one particular choice w.r.t. what to
base64-encode, ...  However, the natural choice would be to
base64-encode the first binary token and leave the second one unencoded.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:01:29 -0500

> if the text on channel binding use is correct/complete?

I think it's correct, but there's a slight disconnect between the BNF
and the text (e.g., "verifier" is defined but never referenced in the
text).

> >	text needed for WG consideration - Sam/Nico?- 9/30

IIRC there was one undecided issue left.  Can we please decide it?