Re: Clarifying the qualities we desire the DIGEST-MD5 replacement to have

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think the proposed charter text concerning DIGEST-MD5 to historic/ 
replacement should be replaced with
something like:

  The group has determined that DIGEST-MD5 (RFC2831) is not suitable  
for progression on the
  Standards Track due to interoperability, internationalization, and  
security concerns.  The group will
  deliver a technical specification for a suitable password-based  
challenge/response replacement mechanism
  for Standard Track consideration.  The replacement mechanism is  
expected to be "better than" DIGEST-MD5
  from a number of perspectives including interoperability,  
internationalization, and security.  The
  WG is expected to strike a consensus-supported balance between the  
many qualities desired in the
  replacement.  Desired qualities include (but is not limited to):
	- Use of well understood and broadly-implemented algorithms (e.g.,  
HMAC, SHA1),
	- Algorithm agility,
	- Negotiated key hardening iteration count,
	- Downgrade attack protection,
	- Mutual authentication,
	- Internationalized,
	- Channel Binding,
	- Minimal Roundtrips.
  The group intends to consider a number of approaches, including  
draft-newman-auth-scam and
  draft-josefsson-password-auth, as input.  Additionally, the WG will  
deliver a document summarizing
  its DIGEST-MD5 concerns and requesting RFC 2831 be moved to  
Historic status.  The WG intends to use
  draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic for a starting point for this  
document.

For those wanting to know more about the WG direction here, I would  
guess they first read Alexey's draft,
then read Chris's draft and the WG list discussion regarding desired  
qualities in the replacement.

Anyways, comments on this suggested text?  Any suggested additions/ 
deletions to the list of desired qualities?
(For suggested additions, please offer text for the WG to consider.)

-- Kurt