Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > implementations of RFC 2195 suffer from interoperability > problems due to its failure to specify a character > set/encoding The challenge has the syntactical form of an RFC 822 msg-id. The concepts of userid and password are the business of the application. All CRAM-D5 needs is "no SPACE in the userid", for a SPACE as defined in (say) RFC 822. No rocket science. > The WG decided it was better to document current > implementations of CRAM-MD5 Some related URLs for those who don't read this list: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2079 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2084 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2086 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2360 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2389 The only issue I can detect is that forcing shepherds to vote YES when they prefer ABSTAIN would make no sense. We had a similar discussion here on this list wrt draft-hutzler-spamops. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf