Subject: Making forward progress

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:42:10 -0400

I've seen no objections to Kurt's new summary of the identities issue
nor to his proposed text for section 3.  I think we should move
forward with that change.

Alexey, how much help do you need dealing with implications of this
change for the rest of the document?

Also, are there ny of Hallvard's comments that you have questions
about or that you believe require more WG discussion?

--Sam

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:52 +0100

>forward with that change.
Sounds good.

>change for the rest of the document?
I will need somebody's help to review my changes once I am done.

>Also, are there any of Hallvard's comments that you have questions
I haven't looked very attentively, but at this time I think most 
issues/questions are straightforward.

Let me cautiously promise to have another revision by October 25. 
Cautiously, because I need to submit 3 more documents in other WGs by 
the same date.

Alexey

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:24:22 +0200

Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

> nor to his proposed text for section 3.

I raised some issues with the new summary in:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/1687

There were additional discussion, even some disagreement on (what I
perceive as) terminology issues.  I proposed a change to the proposed
new text, to which Kurt acknowledged that his proposed text was not a
direct replacement, and that further work was needed.  Has there been
a more recent proposal?  I cannot seem to find it.

> I think we should move forward with that change.

For the record, I again object to removing the paragraphs below, at
this late stage.  Kurt's new summary appear, to me, to propose to
remove them.  The paragraphs could be reworded for clarity, as they
are critical in getting the boundaries between normalization
procedures in an implementation.  But I have yet to see any argument
to why they are technically wrong, and should be removed.

   Any normalization of the authentication identity is defined by a
   particular SASL mechanism, the protocol profile doesn't influence it.

   The mechanism MUST preserve Unicode codepoint when transferring
   authorization identity (e.g. the mechanism cann't apply any form of
   normalization).

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:23:05 -0700

At 04:24 PM 10/23/2004, Simon Josefsson wrote:

>remove them.

I believe I posted a clarification that it was not my intent
to suggest these statements be removed.  At the time I
submitted the suggested text, I presumed they would placed
elsewhere in the specification.

At this time, I think the majority of my "identity concept"
text should be placed in an introductory section.

Additionally, these statements need some clarification
(as I indicated in follow-ups).

>The paragraphs could be reworded for clarity, as they

Because I don't believe anyone has argued that they should be removed.

>   particular SASL mechanism, the protocol profile doesn't influence it.

This statement needs to be clarified.  In particular,
the intent here is that the mechanism specification is
solely responsible for stating how any authentication
identity information is transferred as part of the exchange.

However, the mechanism specification does not necessarily
have any responsibility for stating how authentication
identity information is represented elsewhere.

For instance, an application protocol specification is
free to define how authentication identities appearing
in an identity-assumption policy statement are to
be normalized.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:18:22 +0200

> (as I indicated in follow-ups).

Thanks.  I was confused by the resolution to move forward with a
change that had not yet been fleshed out.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:03:03 -0400

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> I've seen no objections to Kurt's new summary of the identities
    >> issue nor to his proposed text for section 3.

    Simon> I raised some issues with the new summary in:

    Simon> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/1687

Sorry I was not clear on this.  I believed you and Kurt were agreeing
with each othe; I still believe that is true after reading the
exchange again.

--Sam

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:52 +0100

Sounds good.

Alexey

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:24:22 +0200

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:23:05 -0700

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:18:22 +0200

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:03:03 -0400

--Sam