Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] When to start discussing re-charter and new items

From: Thomas Hardjono <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:41:13 -0500

Jeff, Larry,

I was wondering when the Kerberos WG could start discussing items for 
the re-charter. (It'd be good if we could finalize the updated charter 
by the March IETF).

Here are some items of interest I think the charter should include:

(a) How to address the introduction of new enc-types (eg. Camellia and 
other ISO ciphers).  [Camellia has been waiting nearly 1 year for 
approval as WG item].

(b) PACs/PADs. [Discussion already started on telecon and list].

(c) One or more solutions/protocols to solve the cross-realm trust 
establishment problem. [AFAIK, the current charter only allows for a 
"problem statement" (RFC5868) but does not allow for the WG to work on 
specific solutions/protocols].

Thanks.

/thomas/

__________________________________________

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:15:20 -0500

> the re-charter. (It'd be good if we could finalize the updated charter 

You're welcome to bring up anything you'd like to see in the new charter
on the mailing list.  I've been working on putting together a proposal
for a new charter that I hoped to bring to the list last month, but I
haven't had time to finish yet.  I'll probably have time to work on that
next week.

I agree I'd like to have the rechartering done by the end of March.

> specific solutions/protocols].

The present charter allows us to consider proposals, but does not
contain any specific solutions and deliberately is not open-ended in
this regard.

Our original charter was fairly open-ended and contained some work items
that we interpreted fairly broadly.  During the last recharter, we tried
to be more focused and less wide-open.  Experience since then has
convinced me that we may have gone too far in that direction, in some
respects, so I'd like to see the new charter give us a fair bit of
leeway in adopting certain types of work.  Particularly, I expect to
propose a charter that make it fairly easy for us to adopt enctype and
"true" authorization data work, and perhaps some kinds of "true" preauth
work, without requiring rechartering.  However, I don't expect to be
open-ended in other regards, so if there are specific items you'd like
to see included, please bring those up on the list.

-- Jeff

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:51:53 -0500

Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

> Particularly, I expect to
> work, without requiring rechartering.

Did we come to consensus on text that could become charter criteria
for deciding on the adoption of enctype work?  (I realize I might have
just volunteered to write such text.)
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Larry Zhu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:31:06 +0000

Hi Thomas, this is an excellent list. Thanks for compiling. Jeff and I should start work on the charter soon. I will let know you know how that goes.
Thanks,
--Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Hardjono
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:41 AM
To: [email-masked]; Larry Zhu
Cc: krb-wg mailing list ([email-masked])
Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] When to start discussing re-charter and new items

Jeff, Larry,

I was wondering when the Kerberos WG could start discussing items for the re-charter. (It'd be good if we could finalize the updated charter by the March IETF).

(a) How to address the introduction of new enc-types (eg. Camellia and other ISO ciphers).  [Camellia has been waiting nearly 1 year for approval as WG item].

(c) One or more solutions/protocols to solve the cross-realm trust establishment problem. [AFAIK, the current charter only allows for a "problem statement" (RFC5868) but does not allow for the WG to work on specific solutions/protocols].

Thanks.

/thomas/

---

From: Larry Zhu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:58:20 +0000

In IETF79, we got the feedback that the charter should be more specific. Though the specific items Thomas brought up are concrete by nature and there are already some rough proposals on the list (e.g. PKCROSS) based on prior discussions here.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Hutzelman
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:15 AM
To: Thomas Hardjono
Cc: krb-wg mailing list ([email-masked]); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] When to start discussing re-charter and new items

> the re-charter. (It'd be good if we could finalize the updated charter 

You're welcome to bring up anything you'd like to see in the new charter on the mailing list.  I've been working on putting together a proposal for a new charter that I hoped to bring to the list last month, but I haven't had time to finish yet.  I'll probably have time to work on that next week.

> specific solutions/protocols].

The present charter allows us to consider proposals, but does not contain any specific solutions and deliberately is not open-ended in this regard.

Our original charter was fairly open-ended and contained some work items that we interpreted fairly broadly.  During the last recharter, we tried to be more focused and less wide-open.  Experience since then has convinced me that we may have gone too far in that direction, in some respects, so I'd like to see the new charter give us a fair bit of leeway in adopting certain types of work.  Particularly, I expect to propose a charter that make it fairly easy for us to adopt enctype and "true" authorization data work, and perhaps some kinds of "true" preauth work, without requiring rechartering.  However, I don't expect to be open-ended in other regards, so if there are specific items you'd like to see included, please bring those up on the list.

-- Jeff