Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts-06

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:38:42 +0100

I removed gss_name_map_to_any() as per list consensus. This version also 
includes alignment with the MIT Kerberos implementation (v1.8)
which uses gss_buffer_set_t, a type defined in the Open Grid Forum
GSI (grid security infrastructure) document GFD 024. This probably
needs cleanup before we publish since it needs to be a normative
reference (?)

	Cheers Leif

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for 
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts-06
Date: Sun,  7 Mar 2010 05:33:34 -0800 (PST)
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts-06.txt has 
been successfuly submitted by Leif Johansson and posted to the IETF 
repository.

Filename:	 draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts
Revision:	 06
Title:		 GSS-API Naming Extensions
Creation_date:	 2010-03-07
WG ID:		 kitten
Number_of_pages: 14

Abstract:
The Generic Security Services API (GSS-API) provides a simple naming
architecture that supports name-based authorization.  This document
introduces new APIs that extend the GSS-API naming model to support
name attribute transfer between GSS-API peers.

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:09:16 -0700

On 03/ 7/10 06:38 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> I removed gss_name_map_to_any() as per list consensus. This version 
> also includes alignment with the MIT Kerberos implementation (v1.8)

I'll check with Tim to resolve this issue.  A draft was made of these 
extensions, but it has long expired:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-engert-ggf-gss-extensions-00.txt

Shawn.
--
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>

-- 
Shawn.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:13:56 +0100

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-engert-ggf-gss-extensions-00.txt

So that looks like most of GFD 024 and we don't need that for naming
extensions. This is a normative reference so ggf-naming-extensions
would have to become standards track right? An alternative would be
to split off the gss_buffer_set_t stuff into a separate draft and 
reference that from both drafts.

I'd prefer the latter quite frankly. I don't think its a lot of work
and I can volunteer but I think I want to hear from Doug and Von...

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:59:37 +0100

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-engert-ggf-gss-extensions-00.txt

Shawn and me talked to Tim and he said we could keep a normative
reference to GFD 024, so if there are no other compelling reasons
to import GFD 024 or some variant of it I suggest we WGLC the
document as is.

If I don't hear any protests I'll ask Shawn to start the WGLC in
a week or so.

	Cheers Leif