Subject: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-04.txt 5.3.2

From: "Joel N. Weber II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:20:16 -0400

The text of draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-04.txt has three
occurances of this text:

   seq-number
      This field is described above in section 5.3.2.

However it appears that there is no 5.3.2, and that 5.5.1 contains the
explaination.

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:08:28 -0500

Where where you during the WG last call? It ended 7/4.

If we have to edit this agin, we will keep this in mind.

-- 

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

---

From: "Joel N. Weber II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:54 -0400

> Where where you during the WG last call? It ended 7/4.

I'm well aware that the timing is less than ideal with respect to the
IETF process.  I found this as a side effect of reading clarifications
trying to understand something that was discussed in set-change
password; I wasn't specifically trying to look for errors in
clarifications, but I happened to find one.

And it's not my fault personally that nobody caught it before the last
call.  I don't think I have a monopoly on being the only person who is
capable of looking for such errors, nor do I think I volunteered to
accept any such monopolistic responsibility.

> If we have to edit this agin, we will keep this in mind.

Which is precisely why I sent it.  And because presumably, we should
be aware of this for extensions.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:07:28 -0400

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas E Engert <[email-masked]> writes:

    Douglas> Where where you during the WG last call? It ended 7/4.
    Douglas> If we have to edit this agin, we will keep this in mind.

Doug, while I agree with your exasperation at comments coming in after
the last call period, this seems well within the scope of fixes (at
least the reference consistency fix) that we can do during the
author's 48-hour review.

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:15:52 -0400

> be aware of this for extensions.

Probably anything coming in that's not in Clarifications because it's
too late or too large a change should be kept in a queue for
consideration for Extensions.

Ken

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jul 2003 13:27:03 -0400

Agreed -- this is an editorial fix, not a substantive fix,
and is perfectly viable to be done after last call.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       [email-masked]                        PGP key available