Subject: Re: Consensus call: changing examples from ACAP to SMTP

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:06:37 +0000

Sam Hartman wrote:

>Hi.  The discussion seems to have died down on the issue of replacing
>the ACAP example with an SMTP example in the plain draft.
>
>The rough consensus of this working group is that we will not change
>to an SMTP-based example.  We seem to believe that the examples in the
>plain document should illustrate that mechanisms, not illustrate common
>implementation errors in other related protocols.
>
>I think that we have something approaching a consensus that we will be
>better served by encouraging implementers to read all the appropriate
>documents than to include information designed to make sure that
>implementers will not make mistakes even if they do not read the
>appropriate documents.  That's not as clear as the consensus against
>changing the example to SMTP; there may be more room for discussion on
>this issue.
>
>Personally I believe that we may want to consider ways in which we can
>make it clear to implementers what documents they want to read.
>
I suggest the following:
1). Don't change examples in PLAIN
2). Implementation consideration section is added to the base SASL 
document. It will list commonly misimplemented features and will give 
some protocol examples. I will make sure that SMTP PLAIN example is one 
of the examples. Reference to PLAIN will be informative.
(Or this can be a separate document as discussed recently).
3). I am thinking about [co-]authoring a document that is "protocol 
profile designer guide". It will compare existing protocols and how 
different features are implemented in them. This can be the same 
document as in 2, or a separate document.

Alexey
__________________________________________
Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com

Cell: +44 7753759732

IETF standard related pages:
http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html

Personal Home Page: http://www.melnikov.ca
__________________________________________

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:34:54 -0800

>1). Don't change examples in PLAIN

As I previously noted, I intend to offer another example illustrating
another aspect of the PLAIN feature for WG consideration.  But I am going
to be very careful to avoid getting into the details more appropriately
discussed in referencing documents.

>2). Implementation consideration section is added to the base SASL document.

I am a bit leery of adding another section to the base SASL document
(especially at this late stage).  It may be better, as was suggested by
someone else, to instead write an "SASL Implementation Guide" as a separate
document.  I think, however, most of the problems and their solutions are
application protocol specific and, hence, should be addressed in documents
specific to application protocol.

>It will list commonly misimplemented features and will give some protocol examples.
>I will make sure that SMTP PLAIN example is one of the examples.

Depending on what you intend to illustrate, SMTP may not be the best
protocol for the example.  (See prior discussion.)

>Reference to PLAIN will be informative. (Or this can be a separate document as discussed recently).

Again, we need to avoid trumping application profile documents in documents
they reference.  We need to ensure that any example (and as well as prose) is
properly placed in the right document.

Now, depending on example what kind of examples you had in mind, they may or
may not be appropriate.

For instance, examples showing the initial response (without challenge) and
final challenge (without response) would likely be useful.  But we need to
be careful not to specify how exchanges are to be implemented in any
particular application-level protocol.

I suggest you offer specific text to the list for WG consideration.

>3). I am thinking about [co-]authoring a document that is "protocol profile designer guide". It will compare existing protocols and how different features are implemented in them. This can be the same document as in 2, or a separate document.

As a separate document, I think this is a good idea.

Kurt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:06:37 +0000

I suggest the following:

Alexey

Cell: +44 7753759732

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:34:54 -0800

Kurt