Alexey Melnikov writes:
> The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Simple Authentication and
>> Security Layer WG (sasl) to consider the following document:
>>
>>- 'Using GSS-API Mechanisms in SASL: The GS2 Mechanism Family '
>>as a Proposed Standard
>>
>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-18. Exceptionally, comments
>> may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain
>> the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>>
> I would like to suggest a clarification to the IANA registration for
> GS2-* family of SASL mechanisms:
>
> In Section 15, 3rd paragraph:
>
> OLD:
> The IANA is advised that SASL mechanism names starting with "GS2-"
> are reserved for SASL mechanisms which conform to this document. The
> IANA is directed to place a statement to that effect in the sasl-
> mechanisms registry.
>
> NEW:
> The IANA is advised that SASL mechanism names starting with "GS2-"
> are reserved for SASL mechanisms which conform to this document. The
> IANA is directed to place a statement to that effect in the sasl-
> mechanisms registry. With the exception of "GS2-KRB5" and
> "GS2-KRB5-PLUS"
> (registered later in this section), all other mechanism names in this
> family are constructed as
> defined in section 3.1.
>
> Opinions?
This forces future GSS-API mechanisms that provide a SASL mechanism name
to use a SASL name outside of the GS2-* prefix. Was that your
intention?
I thought it would be nice to allow a future GSS-API mechanism, called
say FOOBAR, to be able to register the SASL mechanism name GS2-FOOBAR.
But having them register FOOBAR instead is of course fine too.
I'm fine with adding the text if this situation was what you intended.
/Simon
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
