Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [abfab] draft-adamson-nfsv4-multi-domain-access - which IETF working group?

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:20:09 -0400

Here's my $0.02 worth on how best to move forward your draft  and to
involve other people.

1) NFSV4 should drive the effort. Why? You have a real-world constrained
use case.
Having such a driver makes projects complete more rapidly and helps
tie-break questions about scope expansion.

2) You should definitely seek review from abfab both now and as you
approach last call.  It does overlap with things we care about, but it
is not technically in our charter. If for some reason people who are
planning on spending significant time contributing to the work believe
that having it driven by nfsv4 is too narrow, we can discuss whether
adding this to abfab makes sense.  I'll note that even in cases where
people are well-meaning and all want to get some work done, shifting
working groups tends to slow things down.

3) Any specification of a PAC or other Kerberos authorization data
should happen in krb-wg. So, it's fine for this draft to reference a
PAC, or to describe needs for a PAC. However the actual Kerberos work
should happen in krb-wg.

4) LDAP schema specification is more mature than Kerberos. The LDAP
community might well be happy for that part to happen in nfsv4, in
krb-wg, etc. We should check with them.

Anyway, I've briefly examined your draft, and it seems like a good start
on a really critical issue.