Subject: RE: invalid ASN.1 in gssapi-cfx-02

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:15:26 -0700

Ken Raeburn wrote:
>> RFCs don't change.  RFC 2743 will never change.  A reference to it
>> won't change meaning out from under us.

>> It's possible that there may be updates to the specification or it
may
>> be made obsolete by some new RFC; if that happens, the reference Tom
>> is suggesting would still be to 2743, not "RFC 2743 or whatever
>> replaces it", regardless of how fast and loose we're trying to play
>> with that in other work.

This makes sense. Thanks!

Would it be reasonable by adding a sentence clarifying that the encoding
of the token framing is described in 2743 and it is not using any
variant of ASN.1 encoding?

This would be mostly close to "by reference", since we do not have a
good "reference point" from 2743 to use, so to speak, and we will end up
rephrase the text in section 3.1 of rfc 2743 anyway because of the
customizations we have here.

Do we need another revision of the draft before going last call? (rather
than just making a note on this?)

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Raeburn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:57 PM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: Tom Yu; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: invalid ASN.1 in gssapi-cfx-02

"Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 4) I personally do not think "by reference" is applicable to this
> Kerberos V5 GSS-API mechanism.  You can use "by reference" if you
afford
> the value/context that you refer to can change.  That is not the case
> here; any change of 2743 probably will necessitate an update of this
> draft.

RFCs don't change.  RFC 2743 will never change.  A reference to it
won't change meaning out from under us.

It's possible that there may be updates to the specification or it may
be made obsolete by some new RFC; if that happens, the reference Tom
is suggesting would still be to 2743, not "RFC 2743 or whatever
replaces it", regardless of how fast and loose we're trying to play
with that in other work.

Ken

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:37:08 -0400

> than just making a note on this?)

I've got a couple of things to bring up.  I was going to send email
after finishing reading the -02 version.  They're minor, but I think
I'd want to see another version.

Ken

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:53:11 -0400

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

    Liqiang(Larry)> Ken Raeburn wrote:
    >>> RFCs don't change.  RFC 2743 will never change.  A reference
    >>> to it won't change meaning out from under us.

    >>> It's possible that there may be updates to the specification
    Liqiang(Larry)> may
    >>> be made obsolete by some new RFC; if that happens, the
    >>> reference Tom is suggesting would still be to 2743, not "RFC
    >>> 2743 or whatever replaces it", regardless of how fast and
    >>> loose we're trying to play with that in other work.

    Liqiang(Larry)> This makes sense. Thanks!

    Liqiang(Larry)> Would it be reasonable by adding a sentence
    Liqiang(Larry)> clarifying that the encoding of the token framing
    Liqiang(Larry)> is described in 2743 and it is not using any
    Liqiang(Larry)> variant of ASN.1 encoding?

I think the important thing is to reference or copy the description
based on bytes not based on ASN.1 because Tom has  demonstrated
that the ASN.1 does not apply to our mechanism.

Ken, can you get your comments out within a week or so?  Larry should
we wait for Ken's comments, or should we ask Doug to start the last
call knowing that Ken will probably have last call comments that force
a final version after the last call?