Subject: [sasl] Discussion about SAML&OpenID SASL mechanisms during the Apps Area meeting in Anaheim

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:47:06 +0000

Eliot Lear asked whether draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml and draft-lear-ietf-sasl-openid should be presented in Apps Area or during SASL WG meeting. Originally the latter was proposed. But after looking at tentative agenda for Anaheim there is a bad conflict between SASL WG meeting and IRDE BOF (in Apps) for me. I couldn't get this resolved, so my new proposal is to let Eliot and his co-author speak about these documents during the Apps Area meeting. So if you are interested, please come to the Apps Area meeting - Monday, 9:00am.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:53:36 +0000

Tom Yu wrote:

>Do we have any reason for SASL to meet in Anaheim?  We're basically
>done with most of the existing SASL work items, and the WG conflicts
>imply that the new mechanism proposals should get presented during the
>Apps Area meeting.
>
>Put another way, is there a reason I shouldn't cancel the SASL WG
>session for Anaheim?
>  
>
<hat type='individual'>
I don't see a reason to meet, so cancelling the slot is fine.

In fact, we should start discussing closure of the WG, as there doesn't 
seem to be any energy to finish remaing documents on our charter.
We should also discuss what to do with existing WG documents, if 
authors/editors want to get them finished (inside or outside of the SASL 
WG).
</hat>

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:40:52 -0500

> I don't see a reason to meet, so cancelling the slot is fine.

I'm not really thrilled with the idea of proposing new SASL mechanisms in 
apparea instead of in SASL.  I understand the scheduling issue, but it 
means they hit the wrong audience (plenty of apps people, but not all the 
sec people it should), and actually trying to hash out any issues during 
the room will be a poor use of apparea attendees' time.

If work on the particular mechanisms proposed is going to happen, I'd much 
rather see it happen in a rechartered SASL, perhaps with some fresh blood 
in the form of the authors and proponents of the new documents, than as 
individual work.  I haven't read them in detail, but at least one seems far 
too handwavy and underspecified, and there's going to be some work involved 
in aligning them to the thinking that developed during production of GS2, 
SCRAM, et al.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:55:35 -0500

I agree that SASL mechanism standardization really should happen in a
rechartered sasl, or at least security area rather than apps area.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:58:28 +0000

>rechartered sasl, or at least security area rather than apps area.
I agree. I didn't suggest that Apps should do this.

Eliot presenting in Apps is purely to avoid an agenda conflict.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:00:41 +0000

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> I'm not really thrilled with the idea of proposing new SASL mechanisms 
> in apparea instead of in SASL.  I understand the scheduling issue, but 
> it means they hit the wrong audience (plenty of apps people, but not 
> all the sec people it should), and actually trying to hash out any 
> issues during the room will be a poor use of apparea attendees' time.

There is no plan to discuss detailes of Eliot's 2 drafts in Apps. He is 
just going to present them their and ask if there is any interest in 
working on them.

I would invite people interested in the topic to attend the last 20 
minutes (or so) of the Apps Area slot on Monday.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:34:48 +0100

Jeff,

No need to wait for the IETF meeting.  If you – or anyone else –  have 
substantial comments to make the documents less "handwavy", the authors 
would be grateful.  These are individual -00s, btw.  We would expect the 
docs to evolve.  We're also looking for comments on the general approach.

Regards,

Eliot

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:57:32 -0500

--On Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:34:48 PM +0100 Eliot Lear 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> No need to wait for the IETF meeting.  If you – or anyone else –
> have substantial comments to make the documents less "handwavy", the
> authors would be grateful.

I expect to, eventually.  With luck, around the time of the meeting.

-- Jeff