Subject: RE: padata-type ?

From: Tim Alsop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:00:20 +0100

Sam,

Thanks. This is what I thought would happen since I saw many references to IANA registration, but didn't see anything on IANA web site at present.

Can you also give me an indication as to the future of rfc1510 ? Will it eventually be deprecated or superseded - effectively being replaced with a new rfc covering the Kerberos protocol when clarifications, extensions and other drafts are completed, or will each draft become its own rfc and we will continue to refer to Kerberos as rfc1510 ?

Thanks, Tim. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 12 April 2004 18:02
To: Tim Alsop
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: padata-type ?

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Alsop <[email-masked]> writes:

    Tim> Hi, Can somebody let me know whether there is a reliable and
    Tim> uptodate list of padata-type numbers, and if so where ? I see
    Tim> references to some in rfc1510 and some drafts contain
    Tim> references to padata-type numbers, so I wondered how somebody
    Tim> defining a new authentication method would determine if a
    Tim> number was not being used elsewhere ?

The list in clarifications should be accurate.  Along with extensions
we will be setting up an IANA registry.

If you wish to use a padata for local use or for any other
unregistered use, then use a negative type number.  Simply using some
unused padata type would not be reasonable.

If you do need to register a padata type, ask Cliff for now; again
this will eventually be handled by the IANA.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:23:25 -0400

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Alsop <[email-masked]> writes:

    Tim> Can you also give me an indication as to the future of
    Tim> rfc1510 ? Will it eventually be deprecated or superseded -
    Tim> effectively being replaced with a new rfc covering the
    Tim> Kerberos protocol when clarifications, extensions and other
    Tim> drafts are completed, or will each draft become its own rfc
    Tim> and we will continue to refer to Kerberos as rfc1510 ?

Clarifications obsoletes RFC 1510, so when it is approved by the IESG
RFC 1510 will be replaced.  Since the crypto framework has already
been approved, I have been acting as if the crypto related sections of
RFC 1510 are already replaced.  This is not quite true: the document
that will replace them is a (currently unpublished) proposed standard,
but the protocol action that updates the references to the new
document has not yet happened.

--Sam