Moving forward with CRAM-MD5

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx>]

First, the chairs apologize to the WG for the dropping the ball with  
regards to this work item, and to especially to Frank for not  
responding to his comments to the last CRAM-MD5 WGLC (March 2007).

While the WG was chartered to produce a CRAM-MD5 suitable for  
progression on the Standard Track, the WG has mostly taken a "document  
current practice" approach.  Given this approach and the I-D it  
produced, progression as Informational would be more appropriate.    
For instance, the choice of SHOULD use Unicode, SASLprep, UTF-8 for  
the shared-secret than a MUST seems more appropriate for a  
Informational document documenting current practice than the Standard  
Track trying to ensure interoperability between implementations of the  
specification.

As I do not believe there is sufficient desire or energy to adequately  
address known problems, and a strong desire to publish this document  
largely "as is", I recommend the I-D's intended category be  
"Informational" (to be reflected in the I-Ds header).  I also propose  
the following statement be added to the bottom of the "Introduction"  
section (section 1):
  This document replaces RFC 2195.  Furthermore, RFC 2195 is (on  
approval of this I-D as an RFC) moved to Historic status.

I note that moving a specification off the standards track is  
appropriate when it has fallen into some disfavor.  While use of CRAM- 
MD5 remains prevalent on the Internet, it seems unlikely that the IETF  
would, if considered anew, standardize such at this time.  The IETF  
now seems to favor standardization of mechanisms which provide better  
internationalization and additional security features.

With regards to Frank's comments, I recall each being viewed, for one  
reason or another, as not requiring further changes to the I-D.    
However, because of the delay, and the lack of a specific response to  
his comments, I would like to now give Frank and others the  
opportunity to raise any concerns they might have with regard to this  
document.   (The chairs shall, where appropriate, state whether any  
raised issue is closed and why.)  Hence, it is my intent to subject  
this I-D to another WG last call shortly after the revised I-D is  
announced.

-- Kurt (as SASL WG co-chair)