Subject: RE: CFX Last call comment (was Re: Extensibility and GSSAPI-CFX)

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:56:47 -0800

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Further, I would like at least one bit of the context flags to be
> specifically reserved for use by future extensions to CFX, as opposed
to
> all context flags being reserved for allocation by extensions to the
> GSS-API (they being GSS-API context flags and they having the same
> values as given in rfc2744 that is the conclusion readers may be
tempted
> to draw).

I do not understand: we reserved bits; one of these can be allocated for
use by future extension to CFX, right? Does it have to call it out
explicitly, even with your proposal for the "extensions"? 

> (they being GSS-API context flags and they having the same
> values as given in rfc2744 that is the conclusion readers may be
tempted
> to draw).
> Besides the reserved flag bit(s), should the remaining bits be defined
> to be as the GSS-API, using values from the C-Bindings of the GSS-API?

It does not have to. Should we explicitly call it out by replacing the
second sentence in the second paragraph of section 4.1.1.1: "... via
GSS_Init_sec_context() [RFC-2743].  If any of the above flag values is
returned by the current call to GSS_Init_sec_context() to indicate that
an optional context level service is supported, the same flag value MUST
be set in checksum flag field."

Does this sound clearer?

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nicolas
Williams
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:10 PM
To: Sam Hartman; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CFX Last call comment (was Re: Extensibility and
GSSAPI-CFX)

Further, I would like at least one bit of the context flags to be
specifically reserved for use by future extensions to CFX, as opposed to
all context flags being reserved for allocation by extensions to the
GSS-API (they being GSS-API context flags and they having the same
values as given in rfc2744 that is the conclusion readers may be tempted
to draw).

Besides the reserved flag bit(s), should the remaining bits be defined
to be as the GSS-API, using values from the C-Bindings of the GSS-API?

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:30:37 -0800

> be set in checksum flag field."

Actually, I withdraw this last call comment.  New GSS-API flags would
likely have semantics that the mechanisms would have to understand, and
merely setting the flag in the checksum data flags field of CFX isn't
going to get us those semantics, so never mind.

Nico
--