Subject: RE: Refactoring Kerberos pre-authentication

From: "Eric Rosenfeld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:36:24 -0600

Obviously, I second Sasha's comment.  We have an entire industry that
has implemented PKINIT 16, so I also hope that our goal is to progress,
as much as possible, a bit-exact version to RFC.

-Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Medvinsky Alexander-MGI1174 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:08 PM
To: 'Joel N. Weber II'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Refactoring Kerberos pre-authentication

With a relatively large number of vendors that have already implemented
PKINIT 16, I hope that it can advance to a standards track RFC without
any significant changes, except for removal of some options that no one
is using.  There could be a successor to PKINIT that is also on
standards track, similar to Kerberos extensions vs. clarifications.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel N. Weber II [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:20 PM
To: Medvinsky Alexander-MGI1174
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Refactoring Kerberos pre-authentication

I believe it is probably desireable to get PKINIT 16 to a publishable
state, regardless of whether we end up with a more general framework.
If we do end up agreeing to a more general framework, we may want to
publish a revised document that is essentially the PKINIT 16 protocol
as an informational RFC.

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:43:08 -0400

Eric, Sasha:

A deployed base is not justification for the IETF to publish a document 
as a Standards Track RFC.  I believe the position was made clear.  The 
PK-INIT document as it was at -16 is not ready for standards track.  We 
have already agreed that the values used to identify the "standards 
track" version of PK-INIT are going to be different from those used in 
-16.  The reason is that we do not want the working group to have its 
hands tied by a decision to ship code based upon a document which has 
not completed the IETF process. 

Jeffrey Altman