Subject: FTP AUTH GSSAPI - Is Kitten the appropriate forum?

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:18:27 -0400

Hello:

I would like to ask the group whether or not you believe that Kitten is
an

appropriate forum to discuss a successor to RFC 2228 which specifies the

FTP AUTH GSSAPI mechanism.

A large vendor we all know very well is considering the implementation

of FTP AUTH GSSAPI in their FTP Servers and perhaps their clients.

However, it has become clear in our discussions that RFC 2228 is in some

ways under specified; is susceptible to a few attacks; is not NAT
friendly;

and all known implementations actually violate the base FTP RFCs by

being unable to send data simultaneously on the command and data

channels.

If there are no objections, I would like Kitten to accept an RFC meant

to update RFC 2228 and provide a revised AUTH GSSAPI mode which

does not suffer from the hinted at problems.

Jeffrey Altman

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:23:04 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jeffrey> Hello: I would like to ask the group whether or not you
    Jeffrey> believe that Kitten is an appropriate forum to discuss a
    Jeffrey> successor to RFC 2228 which specifies the FTP AUTH GSSAPI
    Jeffrey> mechanism.

I believe that the kitten list is a great place to review this work,
but I believe that the work does not fall within the sort of things
kitten should be chartered to group.  It seems like working on GSSAPI
and some mechanisms is quite enough work for one WG to commit to.

I believe that ftp work could proceed as individual drafts.  If the
IESG attempts to review individual submissions for an ftp draft and
feels that a working group is required then they could certainly send
the work kitten's way.

-++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe ietf-cat-wg" to [email-masked]

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:27:32 -0500

> feels that a working group is required then they could certainly send

I'm happy to agree with Sam.  I also agree that there are problems in
the FTP GSS spec that need addressing.

Nico
--

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:44:49 -0400

>> and some mechanisms is quite enough work for one WG to commit to.

I agree.  Defining GSSAPI-based authentication for particular applications 
does not seem like it should be within kitten's scope.

>> I believe that ftp work could proceed as individual drafts.

And that is the approach I was going to suggest as well.

-- Jeff