Last Call Review of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-06-27
Requested 2017-06-13
Authors Peter Saint-Andre, Alexey Melnikov
Draft last updated 2017-07-03
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-precis-7613bis-07-genart-lc-dunbar-2017-07-03
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-07-03



Thank you very much for the explanation and the revised wording. Your new wording is much clearer and help people to understand why to postpone the checking. 

Thank you. 

Linda Dunbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament [] 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 8:41 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <>; Linda Dunbar <>;
Subject: Re: [precis] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07

On 6/26/17 5:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament wrote:
> Hi Linda,
> Thanks for your review. Comments inline.
> On 6/26/17 4:53 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
>> Review result: Ready
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by 
>> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like 
>> any other last call comments.
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-precis-7613bis
>> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
>> Review Date: 2017-06-25
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-27
>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06
>> Summary:
>> The document is written very clear. Even for a person who is not 
>> familiar with the App area, I can follow through the description. The 
>> document is ready for publication as standard track document Minor issues:
>> One Minor issue:
>> Page 6 last paragraph has:
>> /SASL mechanisms SHOULD delay any case////mapping to the last 
>> possible moment, such as when doing a lookup////by username, 
>> performing username comparisons, or generating a////cryptographic 
>> salt from a username (if the last possible moment////happens on the 
>> server, then decisions about case mapping can be a////matter of 
>> deployment policy). In keeping with [RFC4422], SASL////mechanisms are 
>> not to apply this or any other profile to////authorization 
>> identifiers, only to authentication identifiers./
>> What does "last possible moment" mean? When I read it, I thought it 
>> meant wait until you got all the characters. But the next sentence 
>> mentions "..happens on the server". How is the "server" related to 
>> the entity that check the user name & password?
> Many authentication decisions happen on an application server to which 
> a user-oriented client connects (think of an email client connecting 
> to an email server). By "last possible moment" we're referring to 
> processing within the application server or an authentication module 
> thereof - for instance, instead of performing case mapping on first 
> receiving data from the client (thus implying that the case 
> information is lost through most of the processing stages), it's 
> better to lose that information only at the very end. Do you feel it 
> would it help to add a more detailed description of the reasoning here?

Here is a proposed adjustment to the text:


      SASL mechanisms SHOULD delay any case
      mapping to the last possible moment, such as when doing a lookup
      by username...


      Because case mapping results in
      information loss, in order to retain that information for as long
      as possible during processing, implementations SHOULD delay any
      case mapping to the last possible moment, such as when doing a
      lookup by username...