Last Modified: 2003-03-07
This group will deliver a revised SASL Technical Specification suitable for consideration as a Draft Standard. This work will be based upon RFC 2222 and draft-myers-saslrev.
This group will deliver revised Technical Specifications suitable for consideration as Draft Standards for the following SASL mechanisms: ANONYMOUS, PLAIN, CRAM-MD5, DIGEST-MD5, and EXTERNAL. This work will be based upon RFC 2195, RFC 2222, RFC 2831, draft-zeilenga-sasl-anon, draft-zeilenga-sasl-plain, draft-nerenberg-sasl-crammd5 and draft-melnikov-rfc2831bis, and draft-myers-saslrev-xx.txt.
This group will deliver a revised Technical Specification suitable for publication as Proposed Standard for the GSSAPI family of SASL mechanisms. This work will be based upon RFC 2222 and draft-ietf-cat-sasl-gssapi.
The following areas are not within the scope of work of this WG:
- new features,
- SASL Mechanisms not specifically mentioned above, and
- SASL "profiles".
However, the SASL WG is an acceptable forum for review of SASL-related submissions produced by others as long as such review does not impede progress on the WG objectives listed above.
|JAN 03||Submit revised SASL (+ EXTERNAL) I-D|
|Done||Submit revised SASL ANONYMOUS I-D|
|Done||Submit revised SASL PLAIN I-D|
|JAN 03||Submit revised SASL CRAM-MD5 I-D|
|Done||Submit revised SASL DIGEST-MD5 I-D|
|JAN 03||Submit revised SASL GSSAPI I-D|
|JUN 03||Submit Implementation Report|
|JUL 03||Submit revised SASL, CRAM-MD5, DIGEST-MD5 I-Ds with Implementation Report to IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard|
|JUL 03||Submit revised SASL GSSAPI I-D to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|AUG 03||Revise charter or conclude|
Minutes based on notes from Chris Newman and Sam Hartman. ----- SASL WG IETF 56 San Francisco 1. Base spec -- document editor is non-responsive, will assign new editor. Issue: Is security considerations sufficient to meet IESG review? 2. Anonymous went through WG last call, will fix issues raised during last call, will submit with base spec. Sam Hartman will send a summary of the last call to the working group after reviewing with the editor. 3. Plain/saslprep The main issue is the stringprep profile. More review is required, especially of the profile. Issue: SASLprep profile should deal with user@domain-name syntax issues. IN particular many authentication identifiers and authorization identifiers include domain components. We need to be aware of any differences between nameprep and saslprep and avoid introducing these differences without good reason. Nameprep works on domain labels, while saslprep works on the string as a whole. Applications may mistakenly perform nameprep on input before giving it to SASL. Issue: Want SASLprep and Kerberos prep to use the same namespace. Discussion of authorization names vs authentication names. Larry Greenfield believes that applications will use the same profile for both. Kurt pointed out that LDAP is an example of an application with significantly different requirements for authorization identifiers than authentication identifiers. 3. DIGEST-MD5 issues Alexey is editor draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2831bis three open issues: 1. Whether we want to merge AES cipher? Postpone selection of mandatory-to-implement and adding AES until we have done a security analysis. Security analysis will be posted to the working group list. 2. Add SASLprep. 3. then ready for last call. 4. CRAM-MD5 draft Lyndon is editor 1. add SASLprep, then done. 5. GSSAPI issues 1. Last call the base32 draft, then last call. 2. An editor needs to be selected. 6. Individual submissions Authors of SRP document want to last call it. Issue: Sam Hartman believes it should have structure which included an OID in front so it could be used as a GSSAPI mechanism.