Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-00.txt

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:35:07 -0400

This note announces the start of a two-week last call within the Kerberos 
Working Group on whether to send the following document to the IESG:

Title:           Extended Kerberos Version 5 Key Distribtion Center
                 (KDC) Exchanges over TCP
Filename:        draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-00.txt
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

   This document describes an extensibility mechanism for the Kerberos
   v5 protocol when used over TCP transports.

This last call will expire at 23:59 EDT on June 22, 2006.

Please review this document and send any comments to the Kerberos Working 
Group mailing list, <[email-masked]>, by that date.  The file can be 
obtained via

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-00.txt

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Chair, IETF Kerberos Working Group
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:00:36 -0700

this document should not move forward if we do not have at least one useful extension that is defined based on this and  progressing roughly at the same time framing as this one does.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Jeffrey Hutzelman
Sent: Thu 6/8/2006 10:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-00.txt

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:42:43 +0200

I can prepare an updated version of my TLS extension, that builds on
this extension mechanism, but I didn't want to do that until I
reasonable knew that the extension mechanism wouldn't be changed
another time.  The old version of the TLS extension is available from:

http://josefsson.org/krb5starttls/draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls.txt

So I'd appreciate if you would take a look at the extension
negotiating protocol first, to see if there are obvious problems with
it.

Once the extension mechanism has been reviewed, I can update the TLS
extension for the new protocol, and submit it.

If others believe it is a requirement that they proceed together, I
guess we could have a second WGLC for the expansion mechanism once the
TLS extension is ready for WGLC.

/Simon

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

> this document should not move forward if we do not have at least one useful
> extension that is defined based on this and  progressing roughly at the same
> time framing as this one does.
>
> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:38:15 -0400

> TLS extension is ready for WGLC.

We have not yet adopted the TLS extension as a work item of this WG.

-- Jeff

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:28:38 +0200

> We have not yet adopted the TLS extension as a work item of this WG.

Ah, right.  Would it be within this WG's charter?

/Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:49:13 -0400

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

    Liqiang(Larry)> this document should not move forward if we do not
    Liqiang(Larry)> have at least one useful extension that is defined
    Liqiang(Larry)> based on this and progressing roughly at the same
    Liqiang(Larry)> time framing as this one does.  Why?  This is not
    a process requirement.  The WG can empose such a requirement if it
    feels the need to do so.

However we have explicitly not made such requirements for Kerberos
extensions typed holes.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:39:49 -0400

> However we have explicitly not made such requirements for Kerberos

[speaking as an individual]
... and I don't think we should have them in this case, either.

In fact, in designing the extensibiliy features of what is now RFC1510ter, 
we expected to be very surprised if someone ever came along and proposed an 
extension that didn't fit in the holes we were defining.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:01:33 -0700

PKINIT was progressing and was using the typed holes, wasn't it?

Building a framework is not useful unless I have something defined along
the way. Otherwise, in what sense do you blieve building the framework
now would help?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Sam Hartman; Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: [email-masked]; Jeffrey Hutzelman
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-00.txt

On Wednesday, June 21, 2006 01:49:13 PM -0400 Sam Hartman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

In fact, in designing the extensibiliy features of what is now
RFC1510ter, we expected to be very surprised if someone ever came along
and proposed an extension that didn't fit in the holes we were defining.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:38:17 -0400

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

    Liqiang(Larry)> PKINIT was progressing and was using the typed
    Liqiang(Larry)> holes, wasn't it?  Building a framework is not
    Liqiang(Larry)> useful unless I have something defined along the

The extensions typed holes--ticket extensions, the ap-req typed hole,
etc.

We decided a long time back (IETF 52 or 53) that we were requiring
that people had potential uses for the typed holes, but not that there
be extensions on the table.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:44:34 -0400

> be extensions on the table.

Note that in this case, there is not only a potential use, but an internet 
draft.  That extension may or may not become one of our work items, but if 
it does not, I expect it will probably be pursued as an individual 
submission.

-- Jeff