On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > Minor issues: [...] > -- section 4, first paragraph: "...as long as this alternative name doesn’t > conflict with any other hash function name from the IANA "Hash Function > Textual Names" registry." > > What prevents future conflicts if someone registers a name that conflicts > with the short name? Good point. > Should the short-names be IANA registered to prevent > this? This is a good idea. I've added: Such alternative name SHOULD be registered in the IANA "Hash Function Textual Names" registry. > (Should future names be limited to 9 chars?) I would rather not put extra restrictions on another registry due to limitations on SASL mechanism names. I would also note that the likelyhood of registering another SCRAM mechanism name is quite low, and the likelyhood of the conflict described above is even lower, so I wouldn't worry too much about this case anyway. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf