My conclusions regarding GSSAPI/GS2 process issues are:Agreed in both cases.
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.
Does this mean that I should remove section talking about SPNEGO? Can I keep/reword it as non-normative section?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.
Agreed.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.