IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] Late Last Call comments: draft-ietf-krb-wg-anonymous

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 08 July 2008 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F283A3A68AE; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355C43A693E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZsYBIpGQbRBe for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB3D3A6A02 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id CA37A40AA; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:20:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Larry Zhu <lzhu@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] Late Last Call comments: draft-ietf-krb-wg-anonymous
References: <tsl63vhl3cf.fsf@mit.edu> <AB1E5627D2489D45BD01B84BD5B9004602C69C7A32@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:20:48 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AB1E5627D2489D45BD01B84BD5B9004602C69C7A32@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> (Larry Zhu's message of "Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:52:37 -0700")
Message-ID: <tslzlosmp8f.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov" <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Zhu <lzhu@windows.microsoft.com> writes:

    >> First, if I call gss_display_name on an anonymous principal in
    >> an acceptor, what do I expect to get back?

    Larry> Would section 2.1.1 of RFC1964 be sufficient for this
    Larry> purpose?

not really.  As Ken pointed out, there is a significant mess

surrounding GSS-API and anonymous names.See section 4.5 in RFC 2743.
In particular, two anonymous names need to compare as false; a special
name type is used; etc.  The GSS-API semantics do not seem to match
well onto some of the Kerberos semantics you propose.

Martin Rex said that the anonymous support was relatively immature in
GSS-API and that perhaps it needed to be revisited.  I tend to agree.

The other concern I have is the multiple ways to specify anonymous
names for the AS case.  I don't understand why we need multiple ways
to do that.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email