Subject: SASL and KITTEN-WG Merger

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 15:38:15 -0600

Sorry for any cross-posting, but this is unavoidable given the subject line.

During IETF 77, the security ADs suggested that we merge the KITTEN and 
SASL WGs.  This has some potential benefits:

1. ensure efforts of any new work items/extensions
2. both WGs have expertise in security interface design
3. analyze proposed security mechanisms for both set of interfaces

Please respond to both lists if you have any objections to such a 
merger.  The time-out for objections is two weeks from this posting.

Thank you,

Shawn KITTEN co-chair
--

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 22:42:39 +0100

Shawn Emery wrote:

> During IETF 77, the security ADs suggested that we merge the KITTEN 
> and SASL WGs.  This has some potential benefits:
>

(Speaking as an individual): I have No Objections.

I suggest the SASL WG should be closed and Kitten should rechater. The 
SASL WG mailing list should stay open though.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 11:46:31 -0500

> Sorry for any cross-posting, but this is unavoidable given the subject line.

:)

> 3. analyze proposed security mechanisms for both set of interfaces

Note that KITTEN never had mechanism standardization as a
responsibility.  Now its successor will?  This means that the new WG's
charter can't just be a union of the KITTEN and SASL charters.

> merger.  The time-out for objections is two weeks from this posting.

No objections here.

I would like to see the proposed charter, of course.

I'm also curious as to the name of the new WG.  I'd be fine with keeping
either of KITTEN or SASL as the name for the new WG.  I'd also be happy
with a new name.

Nico
--

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 13:56:59 +0200

Dear everyone,

I find it hard to have this discussion without understanding what the 
new charter would be.  Is there a pointer somewhere?  We had discussions 
relating to our SAML/OpenID SASL drafts being handled by the new group, 
but I don't know what would be in scope.

Thanks,

Eliot

On 5/5/10 11:38 PM, Shawn Emery wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sasl mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sasl

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 23:35:21 +0100

Eliot Lear wrote:

> new charter would be.  Is there a pointer somewhere?  We had 
> discussions relating to our SAML/OpenID SASL drafts being handled by 
> the new group, but I don't know what would be in scope.

Hi Eliot,
There is no charter proposal for the merged WG, so at this point we are 
discussing things "in general".

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 17:13:33 +0200

> the new group, but I don't know what would be in scope.

To me, the SAML/OpenID mechanisms are perhaps the most important work
item for a new working group, so I would be disappointed if it is not
mentioned in the charter.

/Simon

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:56:49 -0500

> mentioned in the charter.

I don't care if the work Eliot mentions goes in this WG or a separate
WG as long as the work gets done :)

To start, the proposal to merge these two WGs is fairly straightforward
since merging the two charters presents only one minor conflict and
since both the GSS-API and SASL have been converging to a large degree.
The one minor conflict is that KITTEN was not chartered to work on
mechanisms, but SASL did do work on mechanisms (SCRAM, MD5-DIGEST, ...).
I think that is easy to resolve: let the new WG work on mechanisms in
general, or else list the kinds of mechanisms that the new WG may work
on, or, if we think we don't need any new mechanisms, then don't allow
the new WG to work on any.

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:09:07 -0500

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 05:03:29PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Thanks for your notes.  I have no problem in principle with the
> merger, and in fact think it makes a whole lot of sense.  But I
> always like to look at the detail.

No problem.  In fact, I asked to see the proposed charter before you did :)

>                                     Also, I'll just point out that
> this is our opportunity for a new SASSY WG name (KITTEN-KABOODLE?)
> ;-)

Heh.  It's been done too much now :) but I'm OK with that.

Nico
--

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 17:03:29 +0200

Nico, all,

Thanks for your notes.  I have no problem in principle with the merger, 
and in fact think it makes a whole lot of sense.  But I always like to 
look at the detail.  Also, I'll just point out that this is our 
opportunity for a new SASSY WG name (KITTEN-KABOODLE?) ;-)

Eliot

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:12:31 -0400

--On Monday, May 10, 2010 05:03:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

Also, I'll just point out that this is our
> opportunity for a new SASSY WG name (KITTEN-KABOODLE?) ;-)

Absolutely not.  Working group acronyms containing dashes are a major pain.
:-)

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 16:27:50 -0400

what's a good retronym for KABOODLE?

On 5/11/2010 2:12 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Monday, May 10, 2010 05:03:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 17:41:43 -0400

> either of KITTEN or SASL as the name for the new WG.  I'd also be happy

I propose something like

MOGGIES =
Mechanisms Of Generating Generically Interoperable & Effective Security

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:41:11 +0200

On 5/12/10 11:41 PM, Tom Yu wrote:
> I propose something like
>
> MOGGIES =
> Mechanisms Of Generating Generically Interoperable&  Effective Security

I like it!

By the way, it sounds like if we're all having this excellent discussion 
over the name, we're all pretty much in agreement as to direction.  Do I 
understand this to be correct?

Eliot

---

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 01:46:21 -0600

On 05/13/10 01:41 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> By the way, it sounds like if we're all having this excellent 
> discussion over the name, we're all pretty much in agreement as to 
> direction.  Do I understand this to be correct?

I'm currently drafting charter text for the new WG and should be ready 
for review by KITTEN and SASL WG members some time next week.

Shawn.
--

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 08:00:10 -0400

I haven't seen any nay-sayers. I'm in the "ok, fine by me" camp myself.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:13:21 +0200 (MEST)

> understand this to be correct?

I'm fine with whatever active participants and chairs of both WGs seem fit.

IIRC, SASL (rfc2222) was not a chartered work item of CAT, but instead
an individual submission of John Myers.  However, SASL was reviewed
by active CAT participants and CAT meeting time was provided on
IETF Meetings for presenting SASL progress.

-Martin

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:45:07 -0500

> IETF Meetings for presenting SASL progress.

SASL and CAT/KITTEN go really together...

SASL & KITTEN, sitting on a KRB k i s s i n g.
Then a HIP XCON EMU ROLLed by and said
"BFD, I can handle more peers than you two".