Subject: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-set-passwd-00.txt TLV

From: "Joel N. Weber II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:29:40 -0400

Is there any good reason to include the TLV stuff in the set-passwd
document?  I find it confusing, whereas I find the ASN.1 stuff fairly
understandable (though I certainly don't feel like I have a complete
understanding of ASN.1), and it seems like anyone who would be
implementing set-passwd probably needs to understand how to implement
clarifications or extensions as well, which I thought means they have
to understand ASN.1.

I think I favor just dropping the TLV stuff.

And if we don't drop it, it might be worth having text saying which of
the ASN.1 or TLV stuff is to be followed if an inconsistency in the
spec is discovered.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:41:34 -0700

> I think I favor just dropping the TLV stuff.

I dropped it from the upcoming -01 version some time ago.

The TLV stuff I put in to prevent a repeat of an earlier controversy
about the use and encoding of CHOICE in an earlier version of
draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-set-passwd.

I think the matter will not come up again though, now that the ASN.1
specs have been published as PDFs free of charge, therefore section 10
will go.

> the ASN.1 or TLV stuff is to be followed if an inconsistency in the

The very first paragraph of section 10 (second sentence) states this,
although it ought to have had a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" in it.

Cheers,

Nico
--