Subject: Status update for Kerberos Revisions

From: Clifford Neuman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:22:03 -0800 (PST)

This is an update on the status of remaining tasks on Kerberos
revisions.  In my message of November 5th I listed:

 . Internationalization (specifically  UTF-8)
 . Section 5
 . Section 6
 . Appendices

as the open issues.  Taking these in turn - 

  Internationalization:

    We have seen lots of discussion of UTF-8 off the list, and then
    discussion moved to this list.  See Jeffrey Hutzelman's message of
    November 9th for a summary of the issues.  It looks like most are
    in favor of option (3) from Jeff's message, and I concur.  There
    are several details to be work out regarding this issue and until
    the full UTF issues are worked out, this option might only work
    for those realms using only US-ASCII, but it can provide a way to
    ensure backwards compatability and with appropriate limitations
    can probably provide forward compatability as well (realms
    currently cheating to use other than US-ASCII might have to defer
    on updating to this spec until the rest of the UTF 8 issues are
    addressed - i.e. their cheating while otherwise using the new spec
    would present forward compatibility problems). 

    I propose the group quickly come to consense to go forward with
    option 3, and hopefully Tom can use this consensis as a basis for
    his section 6 revisions.

  Sections 5 and 6

    Tom Yu is working on these.  A few of the pieces of the changes to
    5 relevant to the discussion above has come across the list, but I
    am still waiting for an update.

  Appendices

    I am in the process of going over the existing appendices and I am
    waiting for other appendices from Ken.  I had an offer of
    pseudocode from one vendors validation suite which I have not
    received, and will be following up on that.

Action items for the list:

  Doug, can you take consensus on the UTF 8 issue, and if consensus is
  for 3, then Jeff, can you give us an applicability statement -
  i.e. that this works in which situations, and what limitations must
  be imposed on the use of this option until the full set of UTF-8
  international issues are worked out, and then Tom, can you proceed
  on 5 under these assumptions?

Clifford Neuman

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:59:46 -0500

There has not yet been any discussion of just how new implementation
clients will probe KDCs to determine their support for UTF-8.

I think it is essential to discuss probing before there can consensus
on protocol changes that break wire compatibility.

Also, there has been talk of enhancing extensibility further if the wire
protocol is to be broken. Further details of what is planned should be
shared.

I'm still not convinced that the protocol version can't be revved... It
is said that the pvno is buried in the ASN.1, but I don't see this --
it's the first item in KDC messages, for example, and the first item in
tickets, etc... Granted, there's the app-tag coming first before the
pvno, but, so what?

Cheers,

Nico

--
-DISCLAIMER: an automatically appended disclaimer may follow. By posting-
-to a public e-mail mailing list I hereby grant permission to distribute-
-and copy this message.-

Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only 
for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you 
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free 
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents 
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If 
verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This 
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be 
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or 
related financial instruments.

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:24:52 -0600

Based on the discussions so far in regard to UTF-8, the chair sees 
a general consensus for using CHOICE for the KerberosString for the next
draft of the Revisions as Tom described it:

    KerberosString ::= CHOICE {
        general GeneralString (VisibleString),
        ...
    } 

Although this is not final, it will put it in the context of the 
Revisions where it can be further discussed if needed. 

This combined with draft-ietf-kerberos-info-ascii-gen-string-00.txt
which Jeff Altman is submitting today, should allow us to move forward
with the revisions, addressing Cliff's first issue below. 

A separate Internationalization of Kerberos will be needed at a later time.

-- 

 Douglas E. Engert  <[email-masked]>
 Argonne National Laboratory
 9700 South Cass Avenue
 Argonne, Illinois  60439 
 (630) 252-5444