Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> 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 ' >> <draft-ietf-sasl-gs2-17.txt> 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2009-11-18. Exceptionally, comments >> may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf