Subject: WG and SASL C API document

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:31:02 -0700

So where do we sit wrt the WG issuing an informational C API
document? My scan of the list archives shows that four people
(Larry Greenfield, Chris Newman, Raif Naffah, Leif Johansson)
have explicitly come out in favour of this, although Chris
prefers the document be an individual submission. You can
add my name to this list, with a leaning towards this being
a WG document. I don't see any specific opposition to the
document.

I think it's very important that an informational API document be
issued. Having a common interface is critical if we are to see SASL
adopted widely in the community (especially the open source projects).
(IMO.)

--lyndon

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:30:56 -0800

At 12:31 PM 3/26/01 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>document?

Currently it is not listed as a work item.  It's my
belief that there is not wide support for adding a C API
work item.  The comments you note by being in favour of
this work I believe are dated (I have chatted with most
everyone you note about this very issue).  I believe there
is good consensus to recommend the latest proposed charter.

>I don't see any specific opposition to the document.

Please review the archives.  There was significant discussion
regarding the addition of APIs to the charter and the general
need for a narrow focus on critical issues.

>adopted widely in the community (especially the open source projects).

I disagree.  An API RFC is not critical to the wide adoption
of SASL.

---

From: Claus Assmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:11:43 -0800

> I disagree.  An API RFC is not critical to the wide adoption

Maybe not critical, but it would make life of the open source
developers (at least mine and possibly also Larry's) simpler.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:23:08 -0700

> developers (at least mine and possibly also Larry's) simpler.

I agree with Lyndon and Claus, that C API is very important for deployment:
you can write SASL mechanism plugin once and use it in every compatible
system. (I wish I didn't have to change DIGEST-MD5 code when I converted it
from CMU API to our own!).

Saying that I vote to add C API to the Charter.

Alexey

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:42:17 -0800

I think we're bitting off too much work.  We already
have 5 Standard Track documents to produce in a very
short period of time are will likely soon be discussing
an additional mechanism document.  It's been my experience
that working groups can only make significant progress on
a few documents at a time even when you have plenty of
editing resources.  It's also my experience that API
documents can be quite contentious and time consuming
(for the authors and the WG as a whole).

I don't argue that a common C API has potential benefits,
I argue that this WG efforts to produce a SASL Draft
Standard in a timely manner will likely be significantly
impeded if we take on this work.  I believe it best
that this work be undertaken individually for now.  I note
that once we complete the critical work to produce a Draft
Standard, we can and should revise our charter to take on
additional work.

-- Kurt

---

From: "Raif S. Naffah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:52:56 +1000

>Saying that I vote to add C API to the Charter.

whatever the outcome of this discussion is, wrt. inclusion in the charter, 
i urge the authors of the C API to have a look at SM2 and the proposed 
extended interfaces (Java API) to support cache-and-re-use of cryptographic 
parameters of the/any SASL security layer.

>Alexey

cheers;
rsn

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:50:21 -0500

Personally I'd rather define a C++ API. (I even have such an API
implemented.) :-)

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:15:46 -0800

>Personally I'd rather define a C++ API. (I even have such an API

One could define the API using an interface definition language
of some sort and then define language specific bindings as
appropriate.  :-D

---

From: "Raif S. Naffah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:57:42 +1000

>of some sort and then define language specific bindings as

well;  there is IDL to Java bindings 
(http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/omg_idl_to_java_language_mapping.htm), 
as well as Java to IDL bindings 
(http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/java_language_mapping_to_omg_idl.htm). 
would that then qualify Java as such an API specifications langaugae ?  :-)

cheers;
rsn

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:37:35 -0700

> parameters of the/any SASL security layer.

Noted.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:30:56 -0800

---

From: Claus Assmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:11:43 -0800

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:23:08 -0700

Alexey

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:42:17 -0800

-- Kurt

---

From: "Raif S. Naffah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:52:56 +1000

cheers;
rsn

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:50:21 -0500

Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:15:46 -0800

---

From: "Raif S. Naffah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:57:42 +1000

cheers;
rsn

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:37:35 -0700

Noted.