Subject: Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter<

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:42:51 -0400

"Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Rex <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>
>I join Martin.  I think that closing sasl and rechartering is disruptive
>enough.  I don't think it makes sense to change the name of two WGs.  I
>definitely don't think that it makes sense to change to a new mailing
>list instead of one of the existing mailing lists.  I don't think the
>new name or a desire to have a new name is sufficiently compelling to
>change the mailing list.
>
>so:
>
>1) I strongly object to the new wg using a mailing list other than
>[email-masked] the old SASL list.
>2) I don't think it wise for the new WG to have a name that disagrees
>with its mailing list.
>
>As a result I fairly strongly believe the WG should be called kitten or
>SASL.

I agree; I was wondering why we weren't just rechartering one group to absorb the other.  I suggest having kitten absorb sasl, so we don't end up with a wg acronym that's only one of our protocols.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:16:32 -0500

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 07:42:51PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> >As a result I fairly strongly believe the WG should be called kitten
> >or SASL.
> 
> I agree; I was wondering why we weren't just rechartering one group to
> absorb the other.  I suggest having kitten absorb sasl, so we don't
> end up with a wg acronym that's only one of our protocols.

+1

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:13:08 +0530

I don't generally care about naming, and while I don't feel strongly 
about names, and was mostly joking with all of this when it began (and I 
apologize for that), there is a benefit about creating a new name, which 
is that kitten is known for GSS work and SASL is known for SASL work.  
Having a new name may actually lead to less confusion for those 
wondering what happens in the combined group.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:48:18 +0100

Eliot Lear wrote:
> about names, and was mostly joking with all of this when it began (and 
> I apologize for that), there is a benefit about creating a new name, 
> which is that kitten is known for GSS work and SASL is known for SASL 
> work.  Having a new name may actually lead to less confusion for those 
+1.

(No opinion about use of MOGGIES or any other name.)

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:17:41 -0400

> wondering what happens in the combined group.

I notice that Secretariat's expansion for "KITTEN" is "GSS-API Next
Generation".  If we change it to "Common Authentication Technology
Next Generation", based on the old CAT WG name (and actually part of
the current charter text!), it would imply a broader scope than
GSS-API, encompassing SASL and more, so KITTEN could adopt the work of
SASL by a change of charter.  After all, Kerberos was a product of the
CAT working group.

Are there objections to adopting this approach?  Is there likely to be
confusion if we announce that the scope of KITTEN is expanding beyond
GSS-API?

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:46:23 -0400

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Yu <[email-masked]> writes:

    Tom> Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> I don't generally care about naming, and while I don't feel
    >> strongly about names, and was mostly joking with all of this when
    >> it began (and I apologize for that), there is a benefit about
    >> creating a new name, which is that kitten is known for GSS work
    >> and SASL is known for SASL work.  Having a new name may actually
    >> lead to less confusion for those wondering what happens in the
    >> combined group.

    Tom> I notice that Secretariat's expansion for "KITTEN" is "GSS-API
    Tom> Next Generation".  If we change it to "Common Authentication
    Tom> Technology Next Generation", based on the old CAT WG name (and
    Tom> actually part of the current charter text!), it would imply a
    Tom> broader scope than GSS-API, encompassing SASL and more, so
    Tom> KITTEN could adopt the work of SASL by a change of charter.
    Tom> After all, Kerberos was a product of the CAT working group.

I think this is especially true since RFC 2222 was discussed (although I
believe never adopted) by CAT.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:54:21 -0500

> SASL by a change of charter.  After all, Kerberos was a product of the

I like this approach best.

> Are there objections to adopting this approach?  Is there likely to be

None here.

> confusion if we announce that the scope of KITTEN is expanding beyond

As Sam points out, although CAT's output was mostly related to the
GSS-API, it did work on Kerberos and authentication in general -- just
look at the CAT WG page:

http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/cat.html

Therefore it is logical that KITTEN, son-of-CAT, too should have as
broad a scope as CAT did.  Yeah, OK, few are likely to notice this, but
maybe we can get the KITTEN WG charter page to link prominently to the
CAT WG charter page.

Nico
--

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:08:46 -0400

> I like this approach best.

Me too.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:32:20 +0200

+1