GSSAPI/GS2 conclusions

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My conclusions regarding GSSAPI/GS2 process issues are:

1) While the interest in this "GSSAPI" mechanism appears (based
upon number of reviewers) to be small, it seems there is
sufficient interest to continue efforts in this area at least
for now.  Hence I recommend this revising the GSSAPI mechanism
specification remain a work item for the time.  However, I am
concerned that the I-D hasn't gotten sufficient review.
If this trend continues, our ability to deliver will be impeded.

2) There appears that there is little to no support for the
WG to produce a SPNEGO specification, and given that
no good reason has been established to take over
change control for this mechanism and no existing charter
support for this work, I conclude the WG should not continue
work in this area.  Note: individuals with concerns
regarding SPNEGO can provide IANA with registration
comments (see RFC 2222).

3) There appears to be sufficient support to use
draft-josefsson-sasl-gs2 as a basis for a GSSAPI family
of SASL mechanisms.  I recommend Simon continue as WG
Editor submitting his next revision as draft-ietf-sasl-gs2.

The charter description and milestones should be modified
to reflect the above.

- Kurt, SASL co-chair