Re: Consensus call: the fate of CRAM-MD5

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx>]

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  
suggestion:

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.

-- Kurt