From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 10:29:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DA33A69F2; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4613A6CC8 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3T8jki1dRpwy for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FB73A6C13 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7611421F2; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0P7TxARxZbt; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lisa.linksys.com (corp.collabrx.com [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B47C1421FC; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault To: Apps Discuss , Lisa Dusseault's Chairs Subject: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:20:19 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1142273319==" Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --===============1142273319== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-44302356 --Apple-Mail-3-44302356 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Highlights: MORG (Message Organization) BOF in planning for Dublin. Forgot to mention IDNABIS WG was created last month: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idnabis-charter.html P2P Workshop discussed several possible apps projects: finding a "local" server or mirror, BitTorrent caching, documenting BitTorrent itself. Document Status and Progress Active Documents: my action - draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis (Proposed Standard): Did AD Review, discussing issues of poorly-interoperable features with WG - draft-ietf-sieve-editheader (Proposed Standard): Last call Finished. Checking with author if ready for IESG Eval. Stalled, in review, waiting on other: - draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent (Proposed Standard): Last call finished, waiting for authors to deal with last call input - draft-freed-sieve-date-index (Proposed Standard): On IESG Agenda for Jun 5 - draft-monrad-sipping-3gpp-urn-namespace (Informational): On IESG agenda for Jun 5 - draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Proposed Standard): On IESG agenda for Jun 5 - draft-resnick-2822upd (Draft Standard): Just needs an impl'n report to be approved by IESG. - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over example domain names to be resolved. - draft-ietf-eai-dsn (Experimental): Finished IETF Last Call, waiting on sibling documents - draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto: Finished IETF Last Call, IANA has issues - draft-adolf-dvb-urn (Informational): Needs new version to address incomplete information about URN resolution Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs - draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri (Proposed Standard): Now in RFC Queue - RFC 5174, was draft-evain-ebu-urn-03 (Informational): A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) WG Status CALSIFY: New version of RFC2446bis in WGLC? RFC2445bis in AD review. HTTPBIS: See summary of activity: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0397.html IDNABIS: All WG drafts posted. WG is gathering list of open issues on these docs. IMAPEXT: In FIN-WAIT SIEVE: Finishing a few documents: WGLC on a Lemonade doc, discussion USEFOR: No activity. --Apple-Mail-3-44302356 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MORG (Message = Organization) BOF in planning for Dublin.
Forgot = to mention IDNABIS WG was created last month: http://www= .ietf.org/html.charters/idnabis-charter.html
P2P Workshop discussed several possible apps = projects: finding a "local" server or mirror, BitTorrent caching, = documenting BitTorrent itself.
Document Status and = Progress

Active Documents: my action
 - draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis (Proposed = Standard):  Did AD Review, discussing issues of = poorly-interoperable features with WG

Stalled, = in review, waiting on other:
 - = draft-monrad-sipping-3gpp-urn-namespace (Informational): On IESG agenda = for Jun 5
 - draft-ietf-eai-dsn (Experimental): = Finished IETF Last Call, waiting on sibling documents
 - draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto: =  Finished IETF Last Call, IANA has issues  =
 - draft-adolf-dvb-urn (Informational): = Needs new version to address incomplete information about URN = resolution

Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and = new RFCs
- RFC = 5174, was draft-evain-ebu-urn-03 (Informational):

         =      A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for

             =    the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)



WG = Status
  CALSIFY: New version of = RFC2446bis in WGLC?  RFC2445bis in AD review.
  IDNABIS:  All = WG drafts posted. WG is gathering list of open issues on these = docs.
  IMAPEXT: In = FIN-WAIT
  SIEVE: Finishing a = few documents: WGLC on a Lemonade doc, discussion 
  USEFOR: No activity.  

= --Apple-Mail-3-44302356-- --===============1142273319== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss --===============1142273319==-- From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 13:34:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97D13A686B; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F133A686B for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U8WhlovuKLuj for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6212F3A67D2 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K3Gjl-0007FI-6v for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:34:37 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.41]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:34:37 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:34:37 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:36:08 +0200 Organization: Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Lisa Dusseault wrote: > - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over > example domain names to be resolved. BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often it's unclear how they were resolved. Is there no option to enter a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just don't use it ? Out of curiosity I used the atom feeds for the various EAI, SMTP, and 2822upd drafts, and after weeks I'm still not sure what you (collectively) mean when you write "discuss discuss". What is it, a kind of meta-DISCUSS ? > Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs Thanks. Are you interested to "inherit" an unresolved IANA ticket wrt the missing Web archive for the register @ uri.arpa list ? I fear that this DDDS list specified in RFC 3405 is completely dead. > USEFOR: No activity. I've forwarded the RFC 2822 deployment report request. To some degree RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor and NetNews UAs are implementations of RFC 2822. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 15:38:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DF83A6826; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C498F3A6783 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ryhj5XNl8frF for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C766B3A67A5 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC13F1421F6; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id slQDz5ulq24x; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lisa.linksys.com (corp.collabrx.com [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7123C1421F2; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault To: Frank Ellermann In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:38:26 -0700 References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over >> example domain names to be resolved. > > BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often > it's unclear how they were resolved. Is there no option to enter > a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just > don't use it ? The tracker isn't very good at this. In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's hard to reconstruct history this way. Sometimes, but not often, we remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is preserved. > > > Out of curiosity I used the atom feeds for the various EAI, SMTP, > and 2822upd drafts, and after weeks I'm still not sure what you > (collectively) mean when you write "discuss discuss". What is it, > a kind of meta-DISCUSS ? Yeah, and almost a joke. The name of the ballot position is "DISCUSS" so that literally we can discuss an issue related to the document on the call. However, if a DISCUSS is not cleared after the telechat, it becomes used for the ballot position's other purpose -- to block the document until certain changes are made -- that when one of us really just wants to make sure that something is discussed on the call, we say "discuss DISCUSS" in order to say reassuringly " This is really just to trigger a discussion and is not a blocking issue." If we don't trigger a discussion, then the secretariat just announces in the call that such-and-such a document is approved and then move on to the next document, and its easy to miss this opportunity among 20-30 documents. An example of triggering pure discussion is if I want to ask the sponsoring AD whether he has considered Experimental instead of Informational but in the end either might be appropriate. > > >> Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs > > Thanks. Are you interested to "inherit" an unresolved IANA ticket > wrt the missing Web archive for the register @ uri.arpa list ? I > fear that this DDDS list specified in RFC 3405 is completely dead. I can't inherit IANA tickets. My position is usually that these old never-created registries can remain non-existent until a need is proven via a registration request. > > >> USEFOR: No activity. > > I've forwarded the RFC 2822 deployment report request. To some > degree RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor and NetNews UAs are implementations > of RFC 2822. Ok. Lisa _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 15:56:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B393A6A48; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD893A67F4 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNpWCClmyACo for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C89E3A6A71 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=hardie@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1212447382; x=1243983382; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to: from:subject:cc:content-type:x-ironport-av; z=MIME-Version:=201.0|Message-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20<8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53 -6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org>|References:=20<8213C09C- 8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D 53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org>|Date:=20Mon,=202=20Jun =202008=2015:56:15=20-0700|To:=20Lisa=20Dusseault=20,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20Frank =20Ellermann=0D=0A=09|From:=20Ted=20Hardie=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20Lisa's=20Apps=20Area=20Activity=20Repor t=20for=20May|CC:=20"apps-discuss@ietf.org"=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"u s-ascii"|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,530 8"=3B=20a=3D"3622819"; bh=5SruRB5En0e/OyasClWdEhmRZLeU3w5mLuK91EQnks8=; b=IILOuU/gY5oe+flSJ5LI/0G4bdAW75jL6qwcB8H7neTKIy7syZUxAzIM qL3BdjsdRjTtoOcw0MTC1eo0kI/NeJtJm0hG9iLGv0UcIOMmxEJULN92f e80iglVAFItM6pqNLyrwg2p9YPKiw+8yGYWFsT2RdyP3N3SAWa++aoSNM 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5308"; a="3622819" Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO numenor.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 Jun 2008 15:56:21 -0700 Received: from msgtransport02.qualcomm.com (msgtransport02.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m52MuLeI023031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:21 -0700 Received: from nasanexhc03.na.qualcomm.com (nasanexhc03.na.qualcomm.com [172.30.33.34]) by msgtransport02.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m52MuJIE027384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:21 -0700 Received: from [129.46.226.27] (129.46.226.27) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.33.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:56:15 -0700 To: Lisa Dusseault , Frank Ellermann From: Ted Hardie Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 3:38 PM -0700 6/2/08, Lisa Dusseault wrote: >On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> >>> - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over >>> example domain names to be resolved. >> >> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often >> it's unclear how they were resolved. Is there no option to enter >> a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just >> don't use it ? > >The tracker isn't very good at this. In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS >position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's >hard to reconstruct history this way. Sometimes, but not often, we >remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is >preserved. The text doesn't really go away; it becomes less handy to find, though, as they aren't in the ballot text but are in the detail record. >From the public tracker for a document, click the "detail" button. The "Comment Log" will contain the text of each DISCUSS or COMMENT listed, though you have to press a "View Detail" button in most cases to actually see the text. I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce the transparency of the system. Making it handier to find would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in the core record, this works well enough. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 16:37:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D413A677D; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D393A6840 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cp2ePmyj0NZx for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223CA3A6A33 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K3JaS-0007SD-P0 for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:37:12 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.41]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:37:12 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:37:12 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:38:42 +0200 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e29.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Lisa Dusseault wrote: > we say "discuss DISCUSS" in order to say reassuringly " This is > really just to trigger a discussion and is not a blocking issue." Thanks, now I got it, it is a pseudo-DEFER, not a meta-DISCUSS :-) I knew "view details" to see older transactions, but for a ballot update the details are just that, "xyz new position no objection" or a similar one-liner. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 01:12:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FFE3A6B05; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:12:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48813A6A11 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v076+m1q+JxF for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BE728C141 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,582,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="121841748" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2008 04:10:50 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,582,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="211842123" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2008 04:10:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:10:47 +0200 Message-ID: In-reply-to: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Thread-Index: AcjFBBQgob8eGyAYRiO7B1DiLw1X6AATNc/w References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org><8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Ted Hardie" , "Lisa Dusseault" , "Frank Ellermann" Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:56 AM > To: Lisa Dusseault; Frank Ellermann > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May > > At 3:38 PM -0700 6/2/08, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > > >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> > >>> - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over > >>> example domain names to be resolved. > >> > >> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often > >> it's unclear how they were resolved. Is there no option > to enter a > >> statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) > just don't > >> use it ? > > > >The tracker isn't very good at this. In fact, when I clear > my DISCUSS > >position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* > so it's hard > >to reconstruct history this way. Sometimes, but not often, > we remember > >to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is preserved. > > The text doesn't really go away; it becomes less handy to > find, though, as they aren't in the ballot text but are in > the detail record. > > From the public tracker for a document, click the "detail" button. > The "Comment Log" will contain the text of each DISCUSS or > COMMENT listed, though you have to press a "View Detail" > button in most cases to actually see the text. > > I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve > the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce > the transparency of the system. Making it handier to find > would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in > the core record, this works well enough. > regards, > Ted > The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that the original question was slightly different - it was not about the original DISCUSS but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a DISCUSS RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker. Dan _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 04:57:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766933A6A0B; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E813A6ACC for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gh-CTthsAfhc for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3B03A68D9 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 2A98E33C46; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:57:53 -0400 From: John Leslie To: Lisa Dusseault Subject: DISCUSS vs. COMMENT in the ID tracker Message-ID: <20080603115753.GB10817@verdi> References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Lisa Dusseault wrote: > On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often >> it's unclear how they were resolved. Is there no option to enter >> a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just >> don't use it ? I'm guessing Frank is referring to the Comment Log found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ which shows the entire history of state changes, ballot positions, comments and DISCUSS texts; and is noting that it's hardly ever clear how a DISCUSS was resolved. (Indeed, you have to look carefully for the email address of the AD to even see _that_ a DISCUSS was cleared.) > The tracker isn't very good at this. In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS > position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's > hard to reconstruct history this way. I believe Lisa is referring to the "Web Ballot" link from the IESG Agenda web page, which shows only a snapshot summary of the positions at the time it is generate and the text of COMMENTs and open DISCUSSes. I believe this is what most IESG members work from for the telechat discussions. The text of a DISCUSS does indeed "go away" from this page, which I find confusing. There's a good reason, though: when the DISCUSS position is cleared, that text is obviously out of date. (There's no similar automatic expiry of COMMENT text.) > Sometimes, but not often, we remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to > the COMMENT -- which is preserved. It's not clear that individual IESG members _should_ feel any obligation to do this. And a lot of the clearing of DISCUSSes happens "at the last minute" -- leaving very little time to do any fancy footwork for the benefit of folks who will later try to make sense of what happened. Speaking only for myself, I'd find it easier to follow things if there was an option (perhaps even the default) for each AD clearing a DISCUSS to leave the text of the DISCUSS -- or edit it -- as a COMMENT which is non-blocking but preserved (without any fancy cut-and-paste footwork). This wouldn't help Frank much, unless the AD clearing the DISCUSS actually had enough time to record _how_ an issue was resolved, but it might be a step in the right direction... -- John Leslie _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 09:36:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D6A3A6956; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155C53A6956 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1K9yTRFaYsB4 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0ED3A6B37 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608171421F2; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w36dGtckASNp; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95D3142207; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:35:49 -0700 References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org><8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> >> I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve >> the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce >> the transparency of the system. Making it handier to find >> would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in >> the core record, this works well enough. >> regards, >> Ted >> > > The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still > retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that the original > question was slightly different - it was not about the original > DISCUSS > but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a DISCUSS > RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker. In theory we could move that information into a COMMENT field which would be kept with the ballots, without updating the tracker-- or even enter a comment in the comment log (Confusing, no?). If we have a convention like that, it would be nice to be consistent about which we choose. Of course, to encourage this more than by convention, one of the "nice to haves" for the tracker would be to prompt for a DISCUSS resolution text when a DISCUSS position is changed. Lisa _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 09:51:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A553A69A5; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7BC3A6B77 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:51:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9h6dyEwdYTr for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D14D3A6A36 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZU3c1Z04s0EPchoA501E00; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:45:54 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZUle1Z00H4HwxpC8M00000; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:45:41 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Ga22yISuyCwA:10 a=-09TpmSoxdwA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=74Y3DP-3cMOCqqvvyCAA:9 a=lJ-Jq-0bBqlxlAcQoeAA:7 a=QmRyynay8vasvTuZROkLsBDPWxEA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=gi0PWCVxevcA:10 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Lisa Dusseault'" , "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org><8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> <44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org> Subject: RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:45:38 -0400 Message-ID: <00dd01c8c599$422f8da0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AcjFmAzF4Mrp9pWPQLOgB/flDsqbiQAARS5Q Cc: 'Frank Ellermann' , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org I think prompting for, and logging, a discuss-resolution really meets the need. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:36 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Frank Ellermann; apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May > > > On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > >> > >> I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve > >> the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce > >> the transparency of the system. Making it handier to find > >> would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in > >> the core record, this works well enough. > >> regards, > >> Ted > >> > > > > The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still > > retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that > the original > > question was slightly different - it was not about the original > > DISCUSS > > but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a DISCUSS > > RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker. > > In theory we could move that information into a COMMENT field which > would be kept with the ballots, without updating the > tracker-- or even > enter a comment in the comment log (Confusing, no?). If we have a > convention like that, it would be nice to be consistent about > which we > choose. > > Of course, to encourage this more than by convention, one of > the "nice > to haves" for the tracker would be to prompt for a DISCUSS > resolution > text when a DISCUSS position is changed. > > Lisa > _______________________________________________ > Apps-Discuss mailing list > Apps-Discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 18:28:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9553A69F0; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A315D3A695D for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:28:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.066 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY=2.696] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sG+CvrXKvEzH for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632DE3A6886 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id m541STMW026347 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:28:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 5454_89bb3586_31d5_11dd_95ff_0014221f2a2d; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:28:29 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:44784) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:23:04 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:27:26 +0900 To: "David Harrington" , "'Lisa Dusseault'" , "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" From: Martin Duerst Subject: RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May In-Reply-To: <00dd01c8c599$422f8da0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> <44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org> <00dd01c8c599$422f8da0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: 'Frank Ellermann' , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Two points: - I have always looked at the comments log at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/, so I have never missed any (even cleared) DISCUSSes. There is a bit of noise there (sometimes, somebody goes back and forth on whether to add a discuss or not,...), but it's not bad enough that I was ever feeling the need for a fix. - I agree that often, it might be good to see more discuss- resolution details. But while DISCUSSes are created very formally, my impression is that they often get resolved very informally. In many cases, e.g., there is some mail discussions with the draft authors or the WG chairs (and WG), and some text gets added or tweaked in a draft. In some other cases, it just ends up as "seem it wasn't as big a problem as I thought" or "ah, they already have a pragraph describing that issue", or "well, if the WG thought about it and decided the way they did, that's good enough", and so on. In the extreme, it may be "sorry, misunderstood, my bad". If these things have to be entered into a system, they suddenly might have to be worded much more formally, and I guess this might significantly reduce the flexibility of the current process. Regards, Martin. At 01:45 08/06/04, David Harrington wrote: >I think prompting for, and logging, a discuss-resolution really meets >the need. > >David Harrington >dbharrington@comcast.net >ietfdbh@comcast.net >dharrington@huawei.com #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 03:58:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221313A6B8B; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736133A6C60 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:58:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHT2xUIFKiZW for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755CF3A6B8B for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K3qgq-00004w-D0 for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:58:00 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:58:00 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:58:00 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:59:26 +0200 Organization: Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org><8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org><44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org><00dd01c8c599$422f8da0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst wrote: > If these things have to be entered into a system, they suddenly > might have to be worded much more formally, and I guess this > might significantly reduce the flexibility of the current process. For minor issues like "does 2821bis say that DKIM signers are gateways?" [Answer: no] I'm not worried about the invisibility of the answer in the tracker, because I think I know what the correct answer is. For other issues it is more interesting, e.g., what to do with a missing implememtation report when more than ten requests on different lists inside and outside the IETF by more than one participant triggered no result, *and* everybody knows that SMTP is in use, *and* an older version is already part of a STD. The answer to this question (apparently: we tried, that is good enough, let's move on) has major consequences: - for implementors, they will now have to continue to support VRFY and EXPN no matter if two interoperable implementations actually using it exist. - for other standards (next in queue: 2822upd) where getting a decent implementation report might turn out to be difficult. Is the same procedure as for 2821bis (= move on) okay ? JFTR, IMO yes, but I still think that for PS to DS proposals the implementation report(s) should exist at the very begin of the procedure, not as a procedural afterthought in the IESG discussion when the XXXXbis is ready. The answer might affect say IRIbis and 2616bis, even if I got it completely wrong. More on the hardcore nitpicking side, I'm really interested how the 2821bis IPv6- and IPvFuture address ABNF issue work out, and for the example addresses it's a bad case of "told you so" schadenfreude on my side (after rightfully suffering the same question for the detailed news-URI example). Frank P.S.: this might also affect mailto-bis if you go for DS, and I don't see why you shouldn't at least try DS. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 04:25:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4D13A6AA2; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A300B3A6AA2 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:25:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6EFBxdQpY3Op for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AED28C0FB for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.2.192] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:24:23 +0100 Message-ID: <48467B5A.9000806@isode.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:24:10 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May References: <8213C09C-8F5C-4350-8177-B467550DD73C@osafoundation.org> <8A136F93-DC8F-4CF4-9D53-6D7E824B3D58@osafoundation.org> <44EA9E64-DB50-44B6-9D07-D7DE60C31FE0@osafoundation.org> <00dd01c8c599$422f8da0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst wrote: >Two points: > >- I have always looked at the comments log at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/, so I have never > missed any (even cleared) DISCUSSes. There is a bit of noise > there (sometimes, somebody goes back and forth on whether > to add a discuss or not,...), but it's not bad enough that > I was ever feeling the need for a fix. > > Agreed. >- I agree that often, it might be good to see more discuss- > resolution details. > +1. > But while DISCUSSes are created very > formally, my impression is that they often get resolved > very informally. > Indeed. In many cases document editors are so exhausted working on the document that they don't even post the result of changes to the WG mailing list. I was guilty of this myself. >In many cases, e.g., there is some mail > discussions with the draft authors or the WG chairs (and WG), > and some text gets added or tweaked in a draft. In some > other cases, it just ends up as "seem it wasn't as big > a problem as I thought" or "ah, they already have a pragraph > describing that issue", or "well, if the WG thought about > it and decided the way they did, that's good enough", > and so on. In the extreme, it may be "sorry, misunderstood, > my bad". If these things have to be entered into > a system, they suddenly might have to be worded much more > formally, and I guess this might significantly reduce the > flexibility of the current process. > > I think the benefit for the community outweigh the disadvantages of wording things more formally. I don't think IESG members should be shy saying that they misunderstood something. Besides, some discusses can be avoided by asking authors the question informally. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 08:01:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880E93A6C7A; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:01:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6EE3A67A7 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:01:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fL49PRERUn7f for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3E63A697B for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 0B42B33C90; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:01:15 -0400 From: John Leslie To: Frank Ellermann Subject: datatracker for 2821bis Message-ID: <20080604150115.GA8579@verdi> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Frank Ellermann wrote: > > For other issues it is more interesting, e.g., what to do with > a missing implememtation report when more than ten requests on > different lists inside and outside the IETF by more than one > participant triggered no result, *and* everybody knows that > SMTP is in use, *and* an older version is already part of a > STD. When this came up on the May 8 telechat, the blocker was a DISCUSS by Russ Housley: " " http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html does not seem to include " an implementation report for this document. Scott Hollenbeck raised " this point on 30-Nov-2007 in a Last Call comment, but a report has not " appeared. There now is a document titled "SMTP (2821) Implementation Information, Used in Preparing RFC2821bis". (It's not clear when this was added, but note it makes no claim of reporting implementations of 2821bis...) > The answer to this question (apparently: we tried, that is good > enough, let's move on) has major consequences: > > - for implementors, they will now have to continue to support > VRFY and EXPN no matter if two interoperable implementations > actually using it exist. ... a bit picky: we know perfectly well at least two exist (even if we can't be bothered to prove _anyone_ actually enables it)... > - for other standards (next in queue: 2822upd) where getting a > decent implementation report might turn out to be difficult. > Is the same procedure as for 2821bis (= move on) okay ? Umm... You won't catch it from reading the Ballot Tracker link from the agenda page, but among the rougly 90 entries at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis/? there's no entry saying that Russ ever cleared that DISCUSS. Instead he added two more DISCUSS comments about example domains. I don't know whether Russ still sees that as a concern: I suspect that most IESG members don't actually know either. > JFTR, IMO yes, but I still think that for PS to DS proposals > the implementation report(s) should exist at the very begin of > the procedure, not as a procedural afterthought in the IESG > discussion when the XXXXbis is ready. Let us not forget what RFC 2026 actually says: ] ] A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable ] implementations from different code bases have been developed, and ] for which sufficient successful operational experience has been ] obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level... ] The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable ] implementations applies to all of the options and features of the ] specification. In cases in which one or more options or features ] have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable ] implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard ] level only if those options or features are removed. Clearly, nothing we post on this list can change that. The IESG can ignore it, I suppose, but I don't see that as setting any sort of precedent for the next case. -- John Leslie _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 08:45:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5BE3A6B69; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:45:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646073A6AC5 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:45:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIqlZ9Zs3J4l for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E00A3A6B52 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K3v9t-0006N5-0a for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:17 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:17 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:17 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: datatracker for 2821bis Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:45:48 +0200 Organization: Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> <20080604150115.GA8579@verdi> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org John Leslie wrote: > There now is a document titled "SMTP (2821) Implementation Information, > Used in Preparing RFC2821bis". (It's not clear when this was added, but > note it makes no claim of reporting implementations of 2821bis...) Oops, thanks for info, I wasn't aware of this. Apparently the IETF overdose script also doesn't look into the implementation reports and appeals directories, or I missed it. > picky: we know perfectly well at least two exist (even if > we can't be bothered to prove _anyone_ actually enables it)... TINW, I couldn't name the two when asked, but I believe you... :-) > there's no entry saying that Russ ever cleared that DISCUSS. For identical issues they sometimes pick somebody to hold the DISCUSS, and clear the dupes. In that case it's anyway obsolete, I just didn't know that a somewhat anonumous report was posted, but I saw that Cullen cleared his "discuss discuss" about it. [RFC 2026] > Clearly, nothing we post on this list can change that. > The IESG can ignore it, I suppose, but I don't see that as > setting any sort of precedent for the next case. Agreed, but I'm still interested "how stuff works", in practice. Example, I submitted the CRAM-MD5 report because I want it to be promoted on standards track at an appropriate point in time. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 09:52:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72F33A6CB5; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93343A6CBA for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RpLcfnYNGlQb for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC9A3A6BA3 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BC71421F6; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VTW96lOudpLJ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.149] (corp.collabrx.com [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904CE1421F2; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <183744EC-86D0-4F69-9451-623F2F743C6C@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault To: John Leslie In-Reply-To: <20080604150115.GA8579@verdi> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: datatracker for 2821bis Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:52:15 -0700 References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> <20080604150115.GA8579@verdi> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org You're mostly right about the status of this but: On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:01 AM, John Leslie wrote: > > You won't catch it from reading the Ballot Tracker link from the > agenda page, but among the rougly 90 entries at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis/? > > there's no entry saying that Russ ever cleared that DISCUSS. > > Instead he added two more DISCUSS comments about example domains. > I don't know whether Russ still sees that as a concern: I suspect that > most IESG members don't actually know either. From the comment log, it looks like Russ added to the DISCUSS text, but actually he replaced it. It's a confusing aspect of the tracker, but if you find some way to look at just the current ballots rather than the comment log, you'll see that Russ's current DISCUSS text says nothing about interoperability or implementation reports. > > ] > ] A specification from which at least two independent and > interoperable > ] implementations from different code bases have been developed, and > ] for which sufficient successful operational experience has been > ] obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level... > ] The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable > ] implementations applies to all of the options and features of the > ] specification. In cases in which one or more options or features > ] have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable > ] implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard > ] level only if those options or features are removed. > > Clearly, nothing we post on this list can change that. > > The IESG can ignore it, I suppose, but I don't see that as setting > any sort of precedent for the next case. Indeed, and while the IESG is perfectly satisfied about the interoperability of SMTP and Internet Message Format (2822upd), the next couple paragraphs of RFC2026 are very clear in requiring documentation of interoperability, testing and specific implementations, not merely that we be satisfied of a protocol's maturity. So naturally we have to follow that process requirement. We had long discussions last week about how to reduce the effort required when interoperability is obvious, and whether that requires process changes. Lisa _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 11:37:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940B928C207; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE8428C245 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.321 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofpAa14KW0hz for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288DF28C25B for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K3xqE-000KmZ-S5; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:36:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:36:09 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Advancing CRAM-MD5 (was: Re: datatracker for 2821bis) Message-ID: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 04 June, 2008 17:45 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: >... >> The IESG can ignore it, I suppose, but I don't see that as >> setting any sort of precedent for the next case. > > Agreed, but I'm still interested "how stuff works", in > practice. Example, I submitted the CRAM-MD5 report because I > want it to be promoted on standards track at an appropriate > point in time. But it won't happen because, despite its very wide deployment and demonstrations of utility, the lead author* believes that it has been made clear that -- There is a sufficiently strong preference for SASL-based mechanisms over standalone things like RFC 2195 that the odds of a 2195bis being advanced are nearly zero. -- There are enough concerns over challenge-response mechanisms based on MD5 (or keyed MD5) and the belief that CRAM-MD5 requires storing clear-text passwords/secrets on the server that the Security Area is likely to block any attempt to advance CRAM-MD5. Neither disclaimers in a Security Considerations section nor "better than clear-text passwords" arguments are likely to do much good here. I even agree with the first of these. I have mixed feelings about the second, especially when the claimed solution is Digest-MD5 instead of keyed-MD5, but no energy for arguments with people who see the operational environment issues differently that I do and who are sure they are right. So, if there were any real desire to advance CRAM-MD5, it would need to come from someone else. It is not clear that I'd even participate. john * Paul Krumviede passed away some years ago and I don't know how to find Randy these days, so... _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 13:51:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E0C3A698F; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197253A698F for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:51:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDJFcewnps-Q for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744973A6903 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K3zxZ-0006D5-4t for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:51:53 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:51:53 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:51:53 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:53:21 +0200 Organization: Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: [One of the co-authors believed:] > There is a sufficiently strong preference for SASL-based > mechanisms over standalone things like RFC 2195 that the > odds of a 2195bis being advanced are nearly zero. The author of draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 apparently did not believe this, and CRAM-MD5 is a registered SASL mechanism, working as expected. > There are enough concerns over challenge-response > mechanisms based on MD5 (or keyed MD5) There are also concerns about using SHA-1, nevertheless even NIST has no problems with using HMAC-SHA-1 after 2010. There are also concerns about using STD 20, nevertheless it is a full Internet standard, listed in STD 1. > and the belief that CRAM-MD5 requires storing clear-text > passwords/secrets on the server that the Security Area > is likely to block any attempt to advance CRAM-MD5. They could have to justify their actions before the IAB if they break BCP 9. Two interoperable implementations, no known errata after 11 years => mature specification, "DS" is IMO no price in a security area RFC popularity contest. > Neither disclaimers in a Security Considerations section > nor "better than clear-text passwords" arguments are > likely to do much good here. Apart from arguably missing [[WP:NPOV]] to some degree the security considerations in draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 are IMO acceptable and proposed by a SASL co-Chair. > mixed feelings about the second, especially when the > claimed solution is Digest-MD5 instead of keyed-MD5 That's old history, they now want to deprecate DIGEST-MD5, because they figured out that it is far too complex, not interoperable, incompatible with RFC 2617 md5-sess due to an - at the time of the RFC 2831 publication - unreported RFC 2617 erratum, and folks anyway only use a part of the specification, not its integrity/confidentiality features. I'd toss a coin to decide which WG is more charming, SASL or USEFOR. The crammd5 draft is soon five years old, and at the moment expired. > if there were any real desire to advance CRAM-MD5, it > would need to come from someone else. Yes, we talked about it two years ago on the general list as an interesting procedural "problem". IMO an attempt to force an AD to vote YES for something he dislikes makes no sense, no matter what RFC 2026 says, so the point was moot while Sam was the SASL AD. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:04:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E892D3A6D52; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:04:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B8B3A6D50 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F+fcU6tR26Py for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C6E3A6D52 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K415I-0006V4-P2; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:03:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:03:54 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Message-ID: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 04 June, 2008 22:53 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > [One of the co-authors believed:] >> There is a sufficiently strong preference for SASL-based >> mechanisms over standalone things like RFC 2195 that the >> odds of a 2195bis being advanced are nearly zero. > > The author of draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 apparently did not > believe this, and CRAM-MD5 is a registered SASL mechanism, > working as expected. Frank, I assumed from your initial note that you were talking about advancing RFC 2195. If, instead, you are talking about restarting draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 and moving it forward, I collaborated with Lyndon in some very small ways on that and see no reason, personally, why it should not be done, at least to Proposed and Draft. Further than that, we would have a small difficulty (unless things change) because, as far as I know, the dominant CRAM-MD5 implementations for IMAP, and maybe POP, are 2195-conforming rather than SASL conforming. On the other hand, getting a SASL-conforming standards-track RFC published and out there might be a useful step in changing that. Whether draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 could be construed as a DS update to RFC 2195 would also be a matter of interpretation. My personal view (which doesn't count for much) is that, while the key CRAM-MD5 part is the same, the difference in startup mechanisms, ports used, etc., would make it quite a stretch. >> There are enough concerns over challenge-response >> mechanisms based on MD5 (or keyed MD5) > > There are also concerns about using SHA-1, nevertheless > even NIST has no problems with using HMAC-SHA-1 after 2010. > There are also concerns about using STD 20, nevertheless > it is a full Internet standard, listed in STD 1. In a perfect world in which everything was consistent and rational, you would certainly be correct. In one in which the real issue is what the IESG would approve --and in which, for example and despite promises and criteria documents to the contrary, IESG members feel free to register DISCUSS positions and then decline to engage in discussion or respond to explanations from editors-- the rules are whatever the IESG says they are and precedents like the ones you cite don't count unless the IESG says they do. >> and the belief that CRAM-MD5 requires storing clear-text >> passwords/secrets on the server that the Security Area >> is likely to block any attempt to advance CRAM-MD5. > > They could have to justify their actions before the IAB if > they break BCP 9. Two interoperable implementations, no > known errata after 11 years => mature specification, "DS" > is IMO no price in a security area RFC popularity contest. I agree. However, as a matter of personal preference, that isn't a battle I feel like fighting, especially with an IESG that interprets RFC 2026 (BCP 9) as being as, or more, concerned with the form of interoperability reports as with whether things interoperate. >... >> mixed feelings about the second, especially when the >> claimed solution is Digest-MD5 instead of keyed-MD5 > > That's old history, they now want to deprecate DIGEST-MD5, > because they figured out that it is far too complex, not > interoperable, incompatible with RFC 2617 md5-sess due to > an - at the time of the RFC 2831 publication - unreported > RFC 2617 erratum, and folks anyway only use a part of the > specification, not its integrity/confidentiality features. You left out "doesn't provide enough extra security in practical cases to be worth the trouble". >... >> if there were any real desire to advance CRAM-MD5, it >> would need to come from someone else. > > Yes, we talked about it two years ago on the general list > as an interesting procedural "problem". IMO an attempt to > force an AD to vote YES for something he dislikes makes no > sense, no matter what RFC 2026 says, so the point was moot > while Sam was the SASL AD. Now you are beginning to sound as cynical and pragmatic as I am :-( john _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:24:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6383A690B; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101203A690B for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:24:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZ5fik7nFbRQ for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417D53A6A07 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m54MOMKC022946 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:24:22 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m54MOMCv027252 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:24:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m54MOLPT007396; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:24:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m54MOKm9007395; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:24:20 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:24:20 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 (was: Re: datatracker for 2821bis) Message-ID: <20080604222420.GX2735@Sun.COM> References: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Why isn't this thread cc'ed to the SASL WG? Nico -- _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 17:08:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723B13A68AC; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:08:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCCF3A68BC for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.695 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQp8-D2d3TPi for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E803A68AC for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K431Y-00074c-Nj for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:08:12 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:08:12 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:08:12 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:09:43 +0200 Organization: Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e33.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: > I assumed from your initial note that you were talking about > advancing RFC 2195. Yes, I consider the crammd5 draft as 2195bis draft, apparently you think it's different (?) > the dominant CRAM-MD5 implementations for IMAP, and maybe POP, > are 2195-conforming rather than SASL conforming. Sure, but that affects only I18N of user names and passwords. RFC 2195 doesn't say how to do this, the draft says SASLprep. Not really incompatible, a working RFC 2195 ASCII user name and password will continue to work with the draft. Anything else wasn't explicitly specified. RFC 2195 is only six months older than RFC 2277, hopefully implementors used UTF-8 for unspecified RFC 2195 extensions. UTF-8 isn't the same as RFC 5198, let alone SASLprep, but it might be good enough in practice. I'd have no problem with replacing SASLprep by RFC 5198, in the direction of "KISS". > My personal view (which doesn't count for much) is that, > while the key CRAM-MD5 part is the same, the difference > in startup mechanisms, ports used, etc., would make it > quite a stretch. AFAIK there are no ports used in RFC 2195. The crammd5 draft is as it was, just adding SASLprep plus new example, keeping the old examples, updated security considerations, and a new MUST about not looking at the RHS of the challenge that could cause a "recycle at PS", but this MUST can be simply removed. > IESG members feel free to register DISCUSS positions and > then decline to engage in discussion or respond to > explanations from editors If something is odd I'd try to cross-post to a public list or to iesg@ietf to have it on public record. So far the DISCUSS explanation in the I-D tracker worked for me, a kind of review, the author has to answer, and when the sponsoring AD is aware of the answer the ball is again in their part of the field... ...with short periods when nobody knows where the ball is. :-) > that isn't a battle I feel like fighting, especially with an > IESG that interprets RFC 2026 (BCP 9) as being as, or more, > concerned with the form of interoperability reports as with > whether things interoperate. The published 2821 report is a bit odd, I wouldn't dare post it in Wikipedia. Of course the substance of my CRAM-MD5 report is, while formally "nicer", not much better, and I freely admit that I was inspired by the 2234 report, which is the output of a "grep 2234" on a bunch of RFCs. >> folks anyway only use a part of the specification, not its >> integrity/confidentiality features. > You left out "doesn't provide enough extra security in > practical cases to be worth the trouble". Maybe, but CRAM-MD5 really has no mutual authentication, just because the other side accepts a response doesn't mean that it knows the secret and is the site folks want to talk with. > Now you are beginning to sound as cynical and pragmatic as > I am :-( In this case I didn't try to sound cynical, I really consider the rule forcing sponsoring ADs to vote YES as rather dubious. No issue for individual I-Ds, authors can try to find another AD, but for a WG draft it's a dilemma. Maybe ADs should swap "their" WGs biannually. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 02:43:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C213A6CA1; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2DF3A6C35 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LlWVTdmbKCt for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turner.dave.cridland.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:838:378:0:211:9ff:fe2c:e28e]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05B83A6C81 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([217.155.137.61]) by turner.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:43:32 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:43:31 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu Jun 5 01:09:43 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > > I assumed from your initial note that you were talking about > > advancing RFC 2195. > > Yes, I consider the crammd5 draft as 2195bis draft, apparently > you think it's different (?) > > RFC 2195 predates SASL, and is cast as a IMAP authentication method. Of course, everyone's used CRAM-MD5 as a SASL mechanism since SASL came about, so I think it's swings and roundabouts. I may be forced to invoke the "running code" argument, here. > > the dominant CRAM-MD5 implementations for IMAP, and maybe POP, > > are 2195-conforming rather than SASL conforming. > > Sure, but that affects only I18N of user names and passwords. > RFC 2195 doesn't say how to do this, the draft says SASLprep. > Not really incompatible, a working RFC 2195 ASCII user name > and password will continue to work with the draft. Anything > else wasn't explicitly specified. > > RFC 2195 is only six months older than RFC 2277, hopefully > implementors used UTF-8 for unspecified RFC 2195 extensions. > > UTF-8 isn't the same as RFC 5198, let alone SASLprep, but it > might be good enough in practice. I'd have no problem with > replacing SASLprep by RFC 5198, in the direction of "KISS". > > I have to admit that I'm not strictly sure that this matters unduly - SASL itself didn't originally have i18n support, SASLprep et al postdate SASL by quite a way. > > My personal view (which doesn't count for much) is that, > > while the key CRAM-MD5 part is the same, the difference > > in startup mechanisms, ports used, etc., would make it > > quite a stretch. > > AFAIK there are no ports used in RFC 2195. The crammd5 draft > is as it was, just adding SASLprep plus new example, keeping > the old examples, updated security considerations, and a new > MUST about not looking at the RHS of the challenge that could > cause a "recycle at PS", but this MUST can be simply removed. > > Well, realistically, we could state that CRAM-MD5 is only defined for ASCII usernames and passwords, and simply specify it using modern language, with an updated Security Considerations. It's widely implemented, and I think deserves an updated specification which reflects lessons learnt. A MUST NOT pay attention to the man behind the curtain - or indeed the RHS - is to my mind acceptable, but it could be neatly rephrased anyway as cautionary text to client implementors. > >> folks anyway only use a part of the specification, not its > >> integrity/confidentiality features. > > Hey, I implemented that! (Well, the integrity, anyway). > > You left out "doesn't provide enough extra security in > > practical cases to be worth the trouble". > > Maybe, but CRAM-MD5 really has no mutual authentication, just > because the other side accepts a response doesn't mean that > it knows the secret and is the site folks want to talk with. > > Right - CRAM-MD5 has serious limitations, and is, these days, only useful when used under a TLS layer which itself has provided server-to-client authentication, and even then, you'll still be leaving cleartext passwords lying about on the server. To make things clear, I think CRAM-MD5 is pretty close to rubbish, and has serious flaws compared with other, more modern, mechanisms. I think it should be used with caution, and the only reason to consider using it at all are because of its wide deployment. But these are all excellent reasons to update the specification, in order to encourage safe usage, and discourage usage in general. Otherwise, the only documentation we have on CRAM-MD5 remains RFC 2195. > > Now you are beginning to sound as cynical and pragmatic as > > I am :-( > > In this case I didn't try to sound cynical, I really consider > the rule forcing sponsoring ADs to vote YES as rather dubious. I didn't know there was one - this seems somewhat odd for WG drafts, as you say. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 02:43:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA2B3A6C35; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFC53A6ABA for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dhyH4o2IUCN4 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turner.dave.cridland.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:838:378:0:211:9ff:fe2c:e28e]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD29C28C109 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([217.155.137.61]) by turner.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:43:46 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 (was: Re: datatracker for 2821bis) References: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> <20080604222420.GX2735@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <20080604222420.GX2735@Sun.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1695.1212659024.646421@peirce.dave.cridland.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:43:44 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Nicolas Williams Cc: Frank Ellermann , General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Wed Jun 4 23:24:20 2008, Nicolas Williams wrote: > Why isn't this thread cc'ed to the SASL WG? Wouldn't the SASL WG want to recast CRAM-MD5 as a GS2 mechanism? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 07:03:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447213A6BCC; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:03:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC0F3A69D7 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8QXUOwm2Y+8e for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.43.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F01C3A6856 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m55E3BOq001121 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:03:11 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m55E3AKJ050760 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:03:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m55E397a007817; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:03:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m55E394D007816; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:03:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:03:09 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Dave Cridland Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 (was: Re: datatracker for 2821bis) Message-ID: <20080605140308.GE2735@Sun.COM> References: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> <20080604222420.GX2735@Sun.COM> <1695.1212659024.646421@peirce.dave.cridland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1695.1212659024.646421@peirce.dave.cridland.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: Frank Ellermann , General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:43:44AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jun 4 23:24:20 2008, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >Why isn't this thread cc'ed to the SASL WG? > > Wouldn't the SASL WG want to recast CRAM-MD5 as a GS2 mechanism? No. We've come to the conclusion that where we want both, a SASL and a GSS mech we should separate the GSS work and prioritize SASL. Also, we've decided that we can make a pure SASL mechanism look like a SASL/GS2 mechanism without doing the work of specifying a GSS mechanism too. (Which reminds me, I must go do that work for one proposal...) Nico -- _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 08:29:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007CA3A6D2C; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:29:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFC53A6C7B for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlwP1gVi1yr0 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.43.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF08828C172 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m55FSv8m027870 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:28:57 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m55FSuCt014059 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:28:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m55FSuWN007855; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:28:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m55FStgX007854; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:28:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:28:55 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Dave Cridland Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Message-ID: <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:43:31AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Thu Jun 5 01:09:43 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > In this case I didn't try to sound cynical, I really consider > > the rule forcing sponsoring ADs to vote YES as rather dubious. > > I didn't know there was one - this seems somewhat odd for WG drafts, > as you say. I didn't either. I am having a hard time believing that such a rule would be a would one to have. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:37:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE68D3A6D39; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:37:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFA03A6CFB for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.321 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFIb1Y7bditD for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8413A6CFA for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K3xlf-000KH4-HO; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:31:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:31:26 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Advancing CRAM-MD5 (was: Re: datatracker for 2821bis) Message-ID: <1BE2EADC2F2AEBDBA6D833BC@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080604101901.0857ab30@localhost> <20080604150115.GA8579@verdi> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:37:35 -0700 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 04 June, 2008 17:45 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: >... >> The IESG can ignore it, I suppose, but I don't see that as >> setting any sort of precedent for the next case. > > Agreed, but I'm still interested "how stuff works", in > practice. Example, I submitted the CRAM-MD5 report because I > want it to be promoted on standards track at an appropriate > point in time. But it won't happen because, despite its very wide deployment and demonstrations of utility, the lead author* believes that it has been made clear that -- There is a sufficiently strong preference for SASL-based mechanisms over standalone things like RFC 2195 that the odds of a 2195bis being advanced are nearly zero. -- There are enough concerns over challenge-response mechanisms based on MD5 (or keyed MD5) and the belief that CRAM-MD5 requires storing clear-text passwords/secrets on the server that the Security Area is likely to block any attempt to advance CRAM-MD5. Neither disclaimers in a Security Considerations section nor "better than clear-text passwords" arguments are likely to do much good here. I even agree with the first of these. I have mixed feelings about the second, especially when the claimed solution is Digest-MD5 instead of keyed-MD5, but no energy for arguments with people who see the operational environment issues differently that I do and who are sure they are right. So, if there were any real desire to advance CRAM-MD5, it would need to come from someone else. It is not clear that I'd even participate. john * Paul Krumviede passed away some years ago and I don't know how to find Randy these days, so... _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:37:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0764828C199; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:37:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF373A6D33 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:58:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KuUPQLWSvyD for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DD33A6D31 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1K410M-0006Gt-QC; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:58:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:58:49 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Frank Ellermann , apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Message-ID: <4A7365FCFD85A6C65F8D285C@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: <9B85258A730CF23BF34F218C@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:37:35 -0700 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 04 June, 2008 22:53 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > [One of the co-authors believed:] >> There is a sufficiently strong preference for SASL-based >> mechanisms over standalone things like RFC 2195 that the >> odds of a 2195bis being advanced are nearly zero. > > The author of draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 apparently did not > believe this, and CRAM-MD5 is a registered SASL mechanism, > working as expected. Frank, I assumed from your initial note that you were talking about advancing RFC 2195. If, instead, you are talking about restarting draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 and moving it forward, I collaborated with Lyndon in some very small ways on that and see no reason, personally, why it should not be done, at least to Proposed and Draft. Further than that, we would have a small difficulty (unless things change) because, as far as I know, the dominant CRAM-MD5 implementations for IMAP, and maybe POP, are 2195-conforming rather than SASL conforming. On the other hand, getting a SASL-conforming standards-track RFC published and out there might be a useful step in changing that. Whether draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5 could be construed as a DS update to RFC 2195 would also be a matter of interpretation. My personal view (which doesn't count for much) is that, while the key CRAM-MD5 part is the same, the difference in startup mechanisms, ports used, etc., would make it quite a stretch. >> There are enough concerns over challenge-response >> mechanisms based on MD5 (or keyed MD5) > > There are also concerns about using SHA-1, nevertheless > even NIST has no problems with using HMAC-SHA-1 after 2010. > There are also concerns about using STD 20, nevertheless > it is a full Internet standard, listed in STD 1. In a perfect world in which everything was consistent and rational, you would certainly be correct. In one in which the real issue is what the IESG would approve --and in which, for example and despite promises and criteria documents to the contrary, IESG members feel free to register DISCUSS positions and then decline to engage in discussion or respond to explanations from editors-- the rules are whatever the IESG says they are and precedents like the ones you cite don't count unless the IESG says they do. >> and the belief that CRAM-MD5 requires storing clear-text >> passwords/secrets on the server that the Security Area >> is likely to block any attempt to advance CRAM-MD5. > > They could have to justify their actions before the IAB if > they break BCP 9. Two interoperable implementations, no > known errata after 11 years => mature specification, "DS" > is IMO no price in a security area RFC popularity contest. I agree. However, as a matter of personal preference, that isn't a battle I feel like fighting, especially with an IESG that interprets RFC 2026 (BCP 9) as being as, or more, concerned with the form of interoperability reports as with whether things interoperate. >... >> mixed feelings about the second, especially when the >> claimed solution is Digest-MD5 instead of keyed-MD5 > > That's old history, they now want to deprecate DIGEST-MD5, > because they figured out that it is far too complex, not > interoperable, incompatible with RFC 2617 md5-sess due to > an - at the time of the RFC 2831 publication - unreported > RFC 2617 erratum, and folks anyway only use a part of the > specification, not its integrity/confidentiality features. You left out "doesn't provide enough extra security in practical cases to be worth the trouble". >... >> if there were any real desire to advance CRAM-MD5, it >> would need to come from someone else. > > Yes, we talked about it two years ago on the general list > as an interesting procedural "problem". IMO an attempt to > force an AD to vote YES for something he dislikes makes no > sense, no matter what RFC 2026 says, so the point was moot > while Sam was the SASL AD. Now you are beginning to sound as cynical and pragmatic as I am :-( john _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 12:35:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1123A6AC6; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3593A69CD for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:35:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MnTulkbL34kL for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E605B3A6AC6 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K4LEt-0004Se-OU for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:35:11 +0000 Received: from 212.82.251.200 ([212.82.251.200]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:35:11 +0000 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.200 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:35:11 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:36:39 +0200 Organization: Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Dave Cridland wrote: >> I consider the crammd5 draft as 2195bis draft, apparently you >> think it's different (?) > RFC 2195 predates SASL, and is cast as a IMAP authentication > method. Of course, everyone's used CRAM-MD5 as a SASL mechanism > since SASL came about, so I think it's swings and roundabouts. > I may be forced to invoke the "running code" argument, here. Okay, we could say RFCs 2195 and 2222 were close enough for the "DS" maturity as SASL mechanism. >> UTF-8 isn't the same as RFC 5198, let alone SASLprep, but it >> might be good enough in practice. I'd have no problem with >> replacing SASLprep by RFC 5198, in the direction of "KISS". > I have to admit that I'm not strictly sure that this matters > unduly - SASL itself didn't originally have i18n support, > SASLprep et al postdate SASL by quite a way. RFC 4422 is a PS, it would be nice to avoid this for a 2195bis. > realistically, we could state that CRAM-MD5 is only defined > for ASCII usernames and passwords, and simply specify it using > modern language, with an updated Security Considerations. It's > widely implemented, and I think deserves an updated specification > which reflects lessons learnt. +1 IMO the "limited use" note in the SASL registry for CRAM-MD5 makes no sense while less used mechanisms have a "common" note. > A MUST NOT pay attention to the man behind the curtain - or > indeed the RHS - is to my mind acceptable, but it could be > neatly rephrased anyway as cautionary text to client implementors. I'd consider a challenge in the form of a message-id with its RHS and "worldwide unique forever" blurb as an early attempt in the direction of "mutual authentication" and "channel bindings", and from that POV using "MUST" to express "not good enough" is harsh, especially if this MUST could also force "recycle at PS". [DIGEST-MD5] >>>> folks anyway only use a part of the specification, not its >>>> integrity/confidentiality features. > Hey, I implemented that! (Well, the integrity, anyway). Without a simple way to test it I didn't try it, but it's good to know that RFC 2831 qop=auth-int implementations exist... :-) >>> You left out "doesn't provide enough extra security in >>> practical cases to be worth the trouble". >> Maybe, but CRAM-MD5 really has no mutual authentication, just >> because the other side accepts a response doesn't mean that >> it knows the secret and is the site folks want to talk with. > Right - CRAM-MD5 has serious limitations, and is, these days, > only useful when used under a TLS layer which itself has provided > server-to-client authentication, and even then, you'll still be > leaving cleartext passwords lying about on the server. > To make things clear, I think CRAM-MD5 is pretty close to rubbish, > and has serious flaws compared with other, more modern, mechanisms. > I think it should be used with caution, and the only reason to > consider using it at all are because of its wide deployment. > But these are all excellent reasons to update the specification, > in order to encourage safe usage, and discourage usage in general. > Otherwise, the only documentation we have on CRAM-MD5 remains RFC > 2195. For different reasons DIGEST-MD5 is also rubbish. It took my years to figure out that RFC 2617 and 2831 md5-sess are simply different. What's nice about CRAM-MD5 is that it is really easy to implement, and in comparison with APOP or even AUTH LOGIN it is no snake oil. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 12:53:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5CB3A6D08; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:53:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D791C3A6CD8 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfuglwRvocLc for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F823A6D26 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so298220and.122 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.171.10 with SMTP id t10mr938380ane.123.1212695630691; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tela.lan ( [71.224.149.185]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d35sm8386520and.13.2008.06.05.12.53.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> From: Bill Fenner To: Nicolas Williams In-Reply-To: <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:53:47 -0400 References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:43:31AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Thu Jun 5 01:09:43 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: >>> In this case I didn't try to sound cynical, I really consider >>> the rule forcing sponsoring ADs to vote YES as rather dubious. >> >> I didn't know there was one - this seems somewhat odd for WG drafts, >> as you say. > > I didn't either. I am having a hard time believing that such a rule > would be a would one to have. I'm guessing you meant "a good one to have". If a WG produces a document that the WG's AD does not think is good enough to ballot "YES" on, then there's a bigger problem. The rule is there as basically an assertion that the AD is in agreement with the WG's direction. If the WG is working within its charter, then the AD had better be in agreement, since the charter *is* the agreement between the WG and the IESG about what the WG will produce. I wouldn't agree with Frank's characterization of the rule, however. Part of being a sponsoring AD is that you will ballot YES, i.e., you think it'd be good to publish the document. So it's not so much forcing ADs to ballot YES as much as it's a procedural precondition of sponsoring a document to ballot YES. Maybe I'm being naive. What do you see as the problem with this procedure? Thanks, Bill _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 12:57:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB993A693B; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EBE3A65A5 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.99 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CXVa3n5BgJre for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441BA3A68F1 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m55Jv74o011090 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:57:07 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m55Jv6CD051696 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:57:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m55Jv5Mb008555; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:57:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m55Jv5uK008554; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:57:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:57:05 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Message-ID: <20080605195704.GP2735@Sun.COM> References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> <92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:53:47PM -0400, Bill Fenner wrote: > Maybe I'm being naive. What do you see as the problem with this > procedure? That you may find a technical problem worth voting no for? I guess that means DISCUSS till it's fixed. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 13:16:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77323A693B; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23D53A68ED for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yVTsYktGw4V for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1297F3A6870 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so301390and.122 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.123.4 with SMTP id v4mr3152940anc.107.1212696979840; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.190.8 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54e226890806051316g35463980l5a475ca8936dc605@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:16:19 -0400 From: "Bill Fenner" To: "Nicolas Williams" Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 In-Reply-To: <20080605195704.GP2735@Sun.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> <92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> <20080605195704.GP2735@Sun.COM> Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:53:47PM -0400, Bill Fenner wrote: >> Maybe I'm being naive. What do you see as the problem with this >> procedure? > > That you may find a technical problem worth voting no for? I guess that > means DISCUSS till it's fixed. This is the reason for the 'AD Review' phase: to fix problems before bringing the document to the IESG. (Why waste the IESG's time reviewing a document with known problems?) There is no 'no' position. The positions are described at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/help/evaluation/ . Note that these are not absolute rules; they are the procedures that the IESG follows but the details of the IESG's working is left to the IESG. This means that if circumstances warrant (e.g., some draft needs to be published quickly), it's quite possible for a sponsoring AD to bring a document to a telechat while holding a DISCUSS position. Bill _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 5 13:26:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342C43A6B32; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30903A6C82 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i-QGEVwn6gBk for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB1C3A6A45 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=hardie@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1212697569; x=1244233569; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to: from:subject:cc:content-type:x-ironport-av; z=MIME-Version:=201.0|Message-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20<54e226890806051316g3546 3980l5a475ca8936dc605@mail.gmail.com>|References:=20<0835 82D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave. cridland.net>=0D=0A=20<20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM>=0D =0A=20<92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> =0D=0A=20<20080605195704.GP2735@Sun.COM>=0D=0A=20<54e2268 90806051316g35463980l5a475ca8936dc605@mail.gmail.com> |Date:=20Thu,=205=20Jun=202008=2013:26:04=20-0700|To:=20B ill=20Fenner=20,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20Nicolas=20Williams=0D=0A=09|From:=20Ted=20Hardie=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20Advancing=20CRAM-MD5|CC:=20General=20di scussion=20of=20application-layer=20protocols=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D "us-ascii"|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,5 311"=3B=20a=3D"3541560"; bh=PcCpzP/DbVEfWIxKtpH8tVHXh3QvgnBqjSbjWHh0S5w=; b=pB5Dv8vJ86c9+dBQV1O5KY04Fa6RaInbKLG+5S3KhYm9GHXSTIvjf1k4 HhZcYZaFYTPoN063hP2wKVDgSrAqsK9pvw1Y5qbHoHGTJ0TJPJIXEpL6u nnYhsq5XQMZh5Rht6ThsF3Rxmpl+UrA0Alykjs3b01BoBQYCQYkWPMiYH w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5311"; a="3541560" Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO ithilien.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Jun 2008 13:26:08 -0700 Received: from totoro.qualcomm.com (totoro.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.158]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m55KQ8Sj018850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:08 -0700 Received: from nasanexhc03.na.qualcomm.com (nasanexhc03.na.qualcomm.com [172.30.33.34]) by totoro.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m55KQ7q7001215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.46.226.27] (129.46.226.27) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.33.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <54e226890806051316g35463980l5a475ca8936dc605@mail.gmail.com> References: <083582D21FDAC22049679B84@p3.JCK.COM> <1695.1212659011.539096@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <20080605152855.GG2735@Sun.COM> <92C15829-A871-4B73-AE9D-56586D827913@fenron.com> <20080605195704.GP2735@Sun.COM> <54e226890806051316g35463980l5a475ca8936dc605@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:04 -0700 To: Bill Fenner , Nicolas Williams From: Ted Hardie Subject: Re: Advancing CRAM-MD5 Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 1:16 PM -0700 6/5/08, Bill Fenner wrote: >It's quite possible for a sponsoring >AD to bring a document to a telechat while holding a DISCUSS position. > > Bill It's also possible for the sponsoring AD to change the position from Yes to DISCUSS during the processing. For example, if an AD notes a problem but trusts the sponsoring AD's judgement on how to fix better than his/her own, then the sponsoring AD may end up holding the DISCUSS for the issue. Sometimes this is informal as a "I won't let this go until this is done" promise, but it can be formal if the release of the document with all positions at No-ob or Yes would otherwise happen. Ted _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 10 07:32:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712E33A687A; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FE63A6825 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:32:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id en+sVUSFjb0A for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homer.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ED33A6946 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iCoaster.does-not-exist.org (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CAA4F5C3; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tlr by iCoaster.does-not-exist.org with local (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id K294E5-0004MS-11; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:32:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:32:28 +0200 From: Thomas Roessler To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: W3C charters XML Security Working Group Message-ID: <20080610143228.GR860@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org> Mail-Followup-To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, frederick.hirsch@nokia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: frederick.hirsch@nokia.com X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org (Resend of a message that was also sent to saag.) Hello, the W3C has chartered a new XML Security Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec http://www.w3.org/2008/02/xmlsec-charter The Group is tasked to take next steps with the XML Signature and XML Encryption family of specifications, as discussed at the workshop last September: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/ws/ If you're interested in this work and work for a W3C member organization, please contact your Advisory Committee Representative. If you don't know who that is, I'll be happy to make introductions. If you're interested, but don't work for a W3C member organization, please contact Frederick Hirsch (chair) and myself. Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C +33-4-89063488 _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 14:41:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BAB3A6A6F; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AB43A6A6B for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.823, BAYES_00=-2.599, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.605, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CvyZ9B4yZ-qo for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D463A6A20 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86625142217 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEzhgCvw4Lo5 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.145] (corp.collabrx.com [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581C9142213 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <7082A903-24B0-4E9D-BEAA-90B0A78D8D17@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Subject: Fwd: Proposed Final Review of W3C TAG Finding "Passwords in the Clear" Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:38 -0700 References: <2d509b1b0806241556q1e82a7fya1f8e7de30f7f00@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1752161825==" Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --===============1752161825== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4--100302602 --Apple-Mail-4--100302602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI Lisa Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: public-usable-authentication@w3.org > From: "David Orchard" > Date: June 24, 2008 3:56:55 PM PDT > To: public-usable-authentication@w3.org > Subject: Proposed Final Review of W3C TAG Finding "Passwords in the > Clear" > > Dear Web Security Context WG, > > On behalf of the W3C TAG, I would like to solicit a final review of > the Draft TAG finding "Passwords in the Clear" [1]. Comments on > this draft should be posted to www-tag@w3.org and are appreciated. > I'd like to suggest July 18th 2008 as a rough timeframe for comments. > > Cheers, > Dave Orchard > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52 --Apple-Mail-4--100302602 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
Date: June 24, 2008 3:56:55 PM = PDT
Subject: Proposed Final Review of = W3C TAG Finding "Passwords in the Clear"

Dear Web Security = Context WG,

On behalf of the W3C TAG, I would like to solicit a = final review of the Draft TAG finding "Passwords in the Clear" = [1].  Comments on this draft should be posted to www-tag@w3.org and = are appreciated.  I'd like to suggest July 18th 2008 as a = rough timeframe for comments.

Cheers,
Dave Orchard

[1] = http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52

= --Apple-Mail-4--100302602-- --===============1752161825== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss --===============1752161825==-- From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:08:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBB628C0FA; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7378428C0FA for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.964 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.365, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2sj3N+0YwqdW for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEF728C0F5 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KC6CW-0004UO-Cc for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:08:48 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:08:48 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:08:48 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: 2606bis + IDN test TLDs Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:10:16 +0200 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, for some days there were no important changes in the 206bis draft (idnabis-test-tlds). The old stuff is in essence as it was, with a minor update of .localhost to cover IPv6, adding some fresh references (RFC 4343 etc.). Is there anything you are missing ? If folks insist on it ".uucp" could be added to the FAQ (appendix B), I'd know where to find some old references for it. But the point of the draft are reserved *test* + *example* TLDs, and a IANA registry for more reservations (IETF review), it's not a random collection of cruft. Frank _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss