Subject: making progress on CRAM-MD5 before IETF73

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:12:38 -0500

What remains to be done on CRAM-MD5?  I outlined some of the items in
my draft IETF73 agenda, but I would like to make progress on these
before that meeting.

* whether to change the status of RFC 2195 (and maybe RFC 2095)
* whether to change the CRAM-MD5 IANA registry entry
* intended track of draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5-10

Additionally, Frank Ellerman has asked for the document to include
Simon Josefsson's summary comparison of PLAIN and CRAM-MD5.

Is there any objection to Frank's suggestion about adding Simon's
PLAIN/CRAM comparison text?  I have heard none so far, and plan to ask
Lyndon to update the draft accordingly.

2195/2095 Status:

It may be best to explicitly move 2095 and 2195 to Historic in
conjunction with publishing this I-D, regardless of its actual track.

IANA Registry Entry:

The existing registry entry for CRAM-MD5 says "LIMITED" for intended
usage.  The wording of the current I-D also implies that the listing
should remain "LIMITED", despite not giving the "intended usage" field
in the IANA Considerations section.  If we intend to change this
registry entry, this change should be in the IANA Considerations
section, and the requested registry change should be consistent with
the rest of the document.

Intended Status:

I have heard strong opinions on both sides from WG participants about
the intended standards status of the current I-D.  Previous WG
consensus was to publish the I-D as Informational, despite the
proclamation of "Intended status: Standards Track" on the current I-D.
The consensus was uneasy at best.  This document has dragged on for an
embarrassingly long time, and a number of WG participants just want to
get it published.

I observe that, as with the IANA registry entry mentioned above, the
existing text in the document is not really consistent with a protocol
that we intend to be on the standards track.  I suggest that any WG
participants who wish for the I-D to publish on the standards track
work on making the document text consistent with this intent.

                         ====================

Does anyone disagree with my above conclusions that text changes will
be necessary to either publish on the standards track or to change the
IANA registry entry?

My evaluation of the state of this document and of this WG indicates
that the way to most quickly get this document published is:

* Add Simon's comparison text
* Change intended status to "Informational"

and possibly

* Request that 2095 and 2195 be marked "Historic"

I request that any WG participants who want this document to be on the
standards track or who want the intended usage in the IANA registry
changed to declare, before IETF73, their intent to help produce the
required text changes rapidly, along with a proposed schedule for
doing so.

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:30:06 -0800

> Lyndon to update the draft accordingly.

Aside from issues with the particular text Simon suggested (see list  
archives), I have a general concern with inclusion of such text.   It  
will likely be a lightening rod for contentious discussions in the WG  
and the IESG.  It's not clear to me whether we'll reach consensus on a  
particular text.  And as we simply don't need to, why bother?   That  
is, I rather we focus on building consensus on the specification less  
this text.

-- Kurt