Subject: [kitten] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15.txt

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:40:27 +0100

As promised - since there were no protests about the new non-RFC2119
language
I've submitted -15.

*Please comment*

            Cheers Leif

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	New Version Notification for draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15.txt
Date: 	Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:39:24 -0800
From: 	[email-masked]
To: 	[email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15.txt
has been successfully submitted by Leif Johansson and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model
Revision:	 15
Title:		 An information model for Kerberos version 5
Creation date:	 2013-01-14
WG ID:		 krb-wg
Number of pages: 18
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-15

Abstract:
   This document describes an information model for Kerberos version 5
   from the point of view of an administrative service.  There is no
   standard for administrating a kerberos 5 KDC.  This document
   describes the services exposed by an administrative interface to a
   KDC.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:49:08 +0000

Hi Leif,

Thanks for updating this.

> As promised - since there were no protests about the new non-RFC2119

I think the top of section 2 does need a minor tweak. It currently
says:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document uses the standard normative key words ("MUST", "MUST
   NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL") but does not reference
   [RFC2119].  The reason for this (which was discussed extensively in
   the kerberos WG) is as follows:

Two things there: 1) the first and 2nd paragraphs contradict one
another, and 2) "does not reference [RFC2119]" is itself wonderfully
self-contradictory:-)

I'd suggest changing to:

   This document uses the standard key words ("MUST", "MUST
   NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL") that are defined in
   [RFC2119] but with modifications to those definitions as
   described below. The reason for this (which was discussed
   extensively in the kerberos WG) is as follows:

And a typo has snuck in as well: s/inforsmation/information/

Other than that, I think this version is fine. (I'll ask Pete
if he agrees as well.)

Cheers,
S.

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

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:54:06 +0100

>    extensively in the kerberos WG) is as follows:

reads fine to me