[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Consensus call: the fate of CRAM-MD5
On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I favor the SASL WG doing no more CRAM-MD5 work. That is, I favor
simply all mention of CRAM-MD5 from the WG charter.
s/simply all/simply removing all/
After some discussion with various others, I make the following
I suggest we defer the question of whether RFC 2195 should be moved to
Historic (by publication of a draft such as what I offered) until 3-6
months after the publication of SCRAM RFC. It is my hope that this
would allow adequate adoption of SCRAM to sway additional participants
to support obsoleting RFC 2195, and hence allow at least a rough
consensus to be achieved to moving RFC 2195 to historic.
I would strongly object to hinging the publication of SCRAM on any
question about CRAM-MD5 (or DIGEST-MD5) status.