Subject: RE: Do we have any consensus on the 8003 checksum--text follows this line--

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:26:27 -0700

Sam Hartman wrote:
>> This means that we can never extend GSSAPI between two clarifications
>> peers.  Are we willing to live with that?

The consensus within Microsoft for this is "yes".  

Rather, do we want to target the GSSAPI/AES support for roughly the same
timeframe of clarifications and kcrypto?  

In other words, if we take this extensibility issue off the table, are
we ready to make a decision to go last call during the upcoming interim
meeting?  If we do, we should drop this and move forward.

We are working with Love and Luke on inter-operability testing for the
GSSAPI/AES support, and we should have results before the meeting next
week.

Thanks,

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:12 AM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: Nicolas Williams; Jeffrey Hutzelman; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Do we have any consensus on the 8003 checksum--text follows
this line--

>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
<[email-masked]> writes:

    Liqiang(Larry)> I do not see it as a huge problem using typed
    Liqiang(Larry)> holes for the Kerberos 5 GSSAPI mechanism,
    Liqiang(Larry)> although it is less desirable from the abstraction
    Liqiang(Larry)> point of view.  If we can live with that, we can
    Liqiang(Larry)> just wait for the extension work. 

This means that we can never extend GSSAPI between two clarifications
peers.  Are we willing to live with that?

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:59:15 -0500

> meeting?  If we do, we should drop this and move forward.

Note that the interim meeting was called to discuss Extenstions, and PKINIT.
You can talk about other drafts, but other interested parties may not
be attending because GSSAPI was not on the agenda.  Any decisions about last 
call then needs to be on the mailing list and/or the next meeting in November.  

-- 

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

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:09:34 -0500

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:59:15PM -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Larry, Sam and I will probably have hallway discussions on matters not
> on the agenda.

I am not saying that we can not talk about other topics, just that we can not
come call for any consensus. 

I am really glad to sse so much enthusiasm and cooperation among the WG, and hope 
that we can get a good handle on Extensions and PKINIT have plenty of time for the 
informal discussions. 

--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:24:49 -0400

>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu <[email-masked]> writes:

    Liqiang(Larry)> Sam Hartman wrote:
    >>> This means that we can never extend GSSAPI between two
    >>> clarifications peers.  Are we willing to live with that?

    Liqiang(Larry)> The consensus within Microsoft for this is "yes".
    Liqiang(Larry)> In other words, if we take this extensibility
    Liqiang(Larry)> issue off the table, are we ready to make a
    Liqiang(Larry)> decision to go last call during the upcoming
    Liqiang(Larry)> interim meeting?  If we do, we should drop this
    Liqiang(Larry)> and move forward.

I think Nico and I are unwilling to take the extensibility issue off
the table.  However we are willing to only solve the problem for the
first token in the exchange and are willing to do it in a minimal way.
Or at least I think that is what I got out of our recent phone call.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:26:20 -0700

> Or at least I think that is what I got out of our recent phone call.

I'm willing to consider this, but I have to think it through.

I don't think what I proposed should significantly affect time to
delivery, which seems to be Larry's reason for rejecting it.  So I'd
like to discuss this as well in the hallway next week.

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:01:21 -0700