Subject: Last Call: 'The Anonymous SASL Mechanism' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:21:50 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the Simple Authentication and Security 
Layer WG to consider the following document:

- 'The Anonymous SASL Mechanism '
   <draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.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 any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2004-12-17.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.txt

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0500

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.txt

Section 5 has Newman's name spelled incorrectly and the email address is 
outdated.  AFAIK, it should be:

Chris Newman <[email-masked]>

Shouldn't the [IMAIL] and [IMAP] references be updated to RFC 2822 and 
RFC 3501 respectively?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:19:24 +0100

>    <draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The two references to RFC 3679 in that document should be to RFC 3629.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:18:48 +0100

>    <draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard

A comment on the following grammar entry:

   email       = addr-spec
                    ;; as defined in [IMAIL], except with no free
                    ;; insertion of linear-white-space, and the
                    ;; local-part MUST either be entirely enclosed in
                    ;; quotes or entirely unquoted

Assuming it is intentional to use RFC 822 and not RFC 2822 as the
reference for IMAIL, the last additional requirement on local-part
above seem to suggest that:

"foo"."bar"@example.org

should be expressed as:

"foo.bar"@example.org

but as far as I know, these aren't semantically the same e-mail
addresses.

I believe interpretation of local-part should not be done outside of
the administrative realm of the e-mail domain.  Collapsing the first
e-mail address above into the second appear to assume that these two
forms are equivalent.

How about using RFC 2822 and addr-spec without additional
requirements?

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:41 -0800

>How about using RFC 2822 and addr-spec without additional

I am fine with this change.  Unless there are objections, I
will update the I-D accordingly.

Kurt

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0500

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:19:24 +0100

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:18:48 +0100

email       = addr-spec

"foo"."bar"@example.org

should be expressed as:

"foo.bar"@example.org

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:41 -0800

Kurt