Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Fwd: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 22:08:17 +0200

This comment from Barry warrants discussion in the WG I think...

	Cheers Leif

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-14:
(with COMMENT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:53:07 +0200
Resent-From: [email-masked]
Resent-To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:52:50 -0700
From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked],
[email-masked]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

These are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free
to
chat with me about them:

I find Section 2 to be rather odd.  I don't like the way you say that the
terms are used as defined in 2119, and then go on to say, "Oh, but
they're really not, and here's what we mean."  I would *greatly* prefer
that you eliminate the 2119 boilerplate and reference, and simply define
the terms here, as you mean them.

- -- Section 4.1 --

   The Principal MUST be implemented in full and MUST NOT be OPTIONAL in
   an implementation

I think the combination of not-really-2119 terms here is confusing: "MUST
NOT be OPTIONAL".  Maybe the right fix here is just to use lower-case
"optional".  Or, better, maybe just this: "The Principal MUST be
implemented in full, as a required part of every implementation."

- -- Section 4.3 --

Similarly, make "MUST NOT REQUIRE" into "MUST NOT require", probably.

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