Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic
draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-04

[Ballot discuss]
After the Abstract, this document says:

  Note

  A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
  editor as a Informational document for the Internet Community.
  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should
  be sent to kitten@ietf.org.

  Please remove this section.  IESG approval is the time for a final
  document.

  Also, the Abstract itself could use some rewording.  If this document
  is approved, it will do more that recommend, right?

[Ballot comment]
The purpose of my Discuss has been achieved. The IESG has started a discussion on the wider relevance of "obsoletion" and "historic". There is no need to hold up this document any further, and I have cleared my Discuss.

[Ballot discuss]
Building on Russ's Discuss...

The Abstract says:

  This memo describes problems with the DIGEST-MD5 Simple
  Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) mechanism as specified in
  RFC 2831.  It marks DIGEST-MD5 as OBSOLETE in the IANA Registry of
  SASL mechanisms, and moves RFC 2831 to Historic. status.

The document header says "obsoletes" and that would be fine. There doesn't seem to be any need to move anything to Historic.

[Ballot discuss]
After the Abstract, this document says:

  Note

  A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
  editor as a Informational document for the Internet Community.
  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should
  be sent to kitten@ietf.org.

  Please remove this section.  IESG approval is the time for a final
  document.

  Also, the Abstract itself could use some rewording.  If this document
  is approved, it will do more that recommend, right?

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following changes in
the SASL Mechanisms registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms

OLD:

DIGEST-MD5 COMMON [RFC2831] [IESG]

NEW:

DIGEST-MD5 OBSOLETE [RFC2831][RFC-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03] [IESG]

We understand the above to be the only IANA action for this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Authentication Technology
Next Generation WG (kitten) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic'
  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Tom Yu, KITTEN WG co-chair. The document is
ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has received adequate review.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

There are no such concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are no such concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The WG reached consensus on this document. The WGLC passed with only
minor editorial comments.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No one has threatened an appeal, nor is there extreme discontent.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document passes the ID nits tool. No formal review criteria
apply. The document needs to have "Obsoletes: 2831" but this can be
done at the RFC editor stage. The reference to RFC 822 (as opposed to
2822) is intentional.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has its references split properly.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document requests that IANA change the content of the DIGEST-MD5
mechanism registration in the SASL mechanism registry. No new
registries are established.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The document uses no formal languages.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

Technical Summary

The DIGEST-MD5 Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)
mechanism has known security and interoperability problems. This
memo recommends that RFC 2831 be moved to Historic status, and that
the DIGEST-MD5 mechanism be marked as OBSOLETE in the IANA
Registry.

Working Group Summary

This document is a product of the SASL and KITTEN Working Groups
(which merged during the lifetime of the document).

Document Quality

This document passed a Working Group Last Call in the SASL and
KITTEN Working Groups with no major concerns.