re: ID action
P.V.McMahon@rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk Tue, 02 March 1993 20:30 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07905; 2 Mar 93 15:30 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07899; 2 Mar 93 15:30 EST
Received: from BITSY.MIT.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20435; 2 Mar 93 15:30 EST
Received: by bitsy.MIT.EDU id AA03569; Tue, 2 Mar 93 15:14:00 EST
Received: from MIT.MIT.EDU by bitsy.MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA03563; Tue, 2 Mar 93 15:13:54 EST
Received: from relay.pipex.net by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA26623; Tue, 2 Mar 93 15:13:52 EST
X400-Received: by mta relay.pipex.net in /PRMD=pipex/ADMD=cwmail/C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 2 Mar 1993 20:11:59 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/; converted (ia5 text (2)); Relayed; Tue, 2 Mar 1993 20:10:58 +0000
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:10:58 +0000
X400-Originator: P.V.McMahon@rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk
X400-Recipients: cat-ietf@mit.edu
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/;rea0803 0000016300004918]
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: undefined (0)
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: 4918
Priority: Urgent
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: P.V.McMahon@rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk
Message-Id: <"4918*/I=PV/S=McMahon/OU=rea0803/O=icl/PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
To: a <"/DD.rfc822=wray(a)ultra.enet.dec.com/S=gateway/"@bra0121.wins.icl.co.uk>
Cc: cat-ietf@mit.edu, a <"/DD.rfc822=jlinn(a)mcimail.com/S=gateway/"@bra0121.wins.icl.co.uk>
Subject: re: ID action
To: John Wray
cc: John Linn, CAT-WG
Dear John,
Regarding "ID ACTION:draft-ietf-cat-genericsec-04.txt" posted
12:01 to IETF-Announce today:
Could I trouble you with a few quick questions?
- Does draft-ietf-cat-genericsec-04.txt really supersede both
the previous language bindings and the language independent
version?
If this is definitely intentional, then why? If it's a
question of the overheads of maintaining two documents then I
would be quite willing to volunteer to maintain the generic
version.
BTW, forgive me asking this question if such a change was
discussed and agreed at the last IETF - but I couldn't be
present for the CAT WG meeting and so would have missed any
discussion.
- Isn't it a little confusing for the document reference (for
the C bindings) to change from "secservice" to "genericsec"
and jump 2 version numbers?
I would have expected this document to be issued as draft-
ietf-cat-secservice-02.txt.
Why was it not done like this?
- Clearly there is much in draft-ietf-cat-genericsec-03.ps/.txt
which is not in draft-ietf-cat-genericsec-04.txt.
Will the tutorial material be added back in later versions?
(Wasn't it requested as part of the document review?)
When is the ASN.1 format for the initial context
establishment token to be included again?
- With respect to the differences between dratf-ietf-cat-
secservice-01.txt and draft-etf-cat-genericsec-04.txt:
broadly speaking, what has changed?
A brief glance indicates:
- In the support calls, internal format replaces API
format.
- clarification of gss_cred_id_t to (presumably) allow for
treating this type as DCE login context pointers
or similar
- other minor adjustments to reflect implementation
(e.g. constants' values adjusted)
- change to [GSSAPI] to be referenced by its ID
identity
Is this all that you think has significantly changed?
Perhaps it might be useful to discuss some of the above points at
the next IETF?
Regards,
Piers
-------------------------------------------------------
Piers McMahon 02MAR93
Open Distributed Processing, ICL
post: Kings House, 33 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3PX, UK
email: p.v.mcmahon@rea0803.wins.icl.co.uk
OR p.mcmahon@xopen.co.uk
phone: +44 734 586211 extension 3285
fax: +44 734 855106
-------------------------------------------------------
- Re: ID action James M Galvin
- re: ID action P.V.McMahon
- RE: Re: ID action P.V.McMahon