Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
implementations of RFC 2195 suffer from interoperability
problems due to its failure to specify a character
set/encoding
The challenge has the syntactical form of an RFC 822 msg-id.
The concepts of userid and password are the business of the
application. All CRAM-D5 needs is "no SPACE in the userid",
for a SPACE as defined in (say) RFC 822. No rocket science.
The WG decided it was better to document current
implementations of CRAM-MD5
Some related URLs for those who don't read this list:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2079
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2084
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2086
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2360
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2389
The only issue I can detect is that forcing shepherds to vote
YES when they prefer ABSTAIN would make no sense. We had a
similar discussion here on this list wrt draft-hutzler-spamops.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf