Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] kerberos-referrals-13 - text clarification needed

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:01:24 -0500

>>>>> "Zhanna" == Zhanna Tsitkova <[email-masked]> writes:

    Zhanna> Hi, The beginning of the section 4.1 reads: "Two realms
    Zhanna> participate in any cross-realm relationship: an issuing
    Zhanna> realm issues a cross-realm ticket and a consuming realm uses
    Zhanna> this ticket.  There is a degree of trust of the issuing
    Zhanna> realm by the consuming realm implicit in this relationship."
    Zhanna> Would it be possible to clarify the last sentence?

The intent was that the entire rest of the section served to clarify the
summary given in the first paragraph.

    Zhanna> Then, later in this section "Creating a cross-realm
    Zhanna> relationship implies relatively little inherent trust in the
    Zhanna> issuing realm.  Significant trust only applies as principals
    Zhanna> dependent on that issuing realm are given access to
    Zhanna> resources.  However, two deployment constraints may imply
    Zhanna> significantly greater trust is implied by the initial
    Zhanna> cross-realm relationship." - the last sentence needs clearer
    Zhanna> wording, I think.

Could you try to explain what is unclear about it or propose an
alternate wording?
I've worked with the text enough that it's hard for me to tell any more
what's hard to understand and what needs additional clarification.

    Zhanna> In section 3 "The client should expect, when sending names
    Zhanna> with the "canonicalize" KDC option, that names in the KDC's
    Zhanna> reply MAY be different than the name in the request." I
    Zhanna> suggest to have "MAY be different than the names in the
    Zhanna> request".
This is a good catch; thanks.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Greg Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:18:41 -0500

> summary given in the first paragraph.

The clauses can be a little difficult to parse out.  I suggest
s/implicit in this relationship/implied by this relationship/.

> Could you try to explain what is unclear about it or propose an

"X may imply Y is implied by Z" is tough to understand.  I suggest
"However, two deployment constraints may increase the trust implied by
the cross-realm relationship."

Also, it's not clear that the subsequent items are really "constraints".
 Perhaps "deployment characteristics" would be better.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:10:57 -0500

Zhanna, thanks for pointing out the areas to focus on! Greg, both of these sound like improvements.

Jeff, I'm still waiting for direction on this draft.
Should I publish a new version with these clarifications?
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:06:59 -0500

> Should I publish a new version with these clarifications?

I... don't remember.