Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04

[Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
  Thank you for considering, I read it from the eyes of someone new to the document, and perhaps ref [MS-SFU] caused the doubts. I agree that for people following the work this is probably obvious:) Since it is a Standards document I think it will clarify a lot if the same term is used across the document; you are probably a better judge on that.

Best,
Meral



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 6:57 PM
> To: Meral Shirazipour
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04
> 
> Hi Meral,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
> 
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > [Page 3] 2nd and 3rd paragraph: The word "service" is used to
> > designate both the proxy-service and the second backend
> > "application-service" as per [MS-SFU]. This may confuse the reader at first
> read.
> > Suggestion would be to use "proxy-service" and "application-service".
> > [Page 8] after point "2." would also benefit from clearer use of these
> > terms.
> 
> From the point of view of the Kerberos protocol, there is only one service
> here, so I think it is appropriate to use only a single term.
> 
> > [Page 8], last paragraph, it was not clear to me if "service principal"
> > is the "application service"?
> 
> "service principal name" is the identifier used to represent the application
> service within the Kerberos protocol, yes.
> 
> I am not sure if I should recommend that the authors make any changes to
> reduce the potential for confusion.
> 
> -Ben Kaduk