Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Comments on adopting draft-sorce-krbwg-general-pad as a work item

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:11:25 -0400

The chairs would like to solicit comments on whether the PAD draft is
ready for us to adopt as a working group draft.
Please send comments by July 10.

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

---

From: Josh Howlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:20:35 +0000

>Please send comments by July 10.

Looks good to me. To reiterate I would strongly prefer the document to
call out to existing schema and explicitly discuss use of GSS-API naming
extensions. Scott is right that ultimately the encoding don't matter; my
suggestion of SAML encoding was basically a knee-jerk reaction to
observing re-invention.

Josh.

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:31:11 -0700

> Please send comments by July 10.

+1 as something for the WG to work on.  (That's the question, right?)

My own knee-jerk reaction is that it ought to reuse RFC 2307 and ASN1 encoding.  ;-)  

I have not looked at the latest draft, but I actually do think that some explicit cross-reference to 2307 data is desirable.

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:59:34 -0400

>>>>> "Henry" == Henry B Hotz <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> Please send comments by July 10.

    Henry> +1 as something for the WG to work on.  (That's the question, right?)

It's a bit more than that.  The question is roughly is this draft baked
enough that it should form a starting point.  If we adopt this draft in
this manner there is a presumed consensus behind the current text. If we
deadlock on whether to make a particular change we're left with the
current text.

So, if you think there are issues that absolutely must be fixed, it
would be reasonable for you to say you're in favor of the work being
done but that issue x y and z should be fixed before adoption.

If you think that there are issues you'd like to see changed but that
forward progress is more important than fixing those issues, then you're
probably in favor of adoption.  You can still argue to make those
changes after adoption, but once the WG has adopted it's harder to argue
that no standard at all is the right answer.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:10:09 -0700

On Jun 29, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> It's a bit more than that.

K

Not sure I'm quite ready to go that far.  Haven't studied the latest draft enough.