Re: [KAML] Re: Chicago bar-BOF summary

["Henry B. Hotz" <[e-mail]>]

Anyone know the compatibility of the PAC with other authorization  
data?  DCE authN data is, I presume, ASN1 encoded.  I think the PAC  
is just a memory dump.  A SAML token is XML.

Even if we ignore DCE, can we guarantee that an XML blob and the PAC  
can coexist if needed?  I think I'm seeing some provisions for that,  
but want to confirm.

 ><I don't have anything to add to Doug's comments.>>

On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:

> Gerald Beuchelt wrote:
>> It is my understanding (and I am also no lawyer!) that the article  
>> by John Brezak carries a patent license regarding the actual  
>> content of the document itself.
>> Now, this document specifies the PAC for Windows 2000, with the  
>> exception of 18 reserved fields. What it also does not specify is  
>> any PAC changes in XP, 2003, Vista, or 2008. It also does not  
>> specify any backend infrastructure (e.g. discovery or resolution  
>> services, policy tools, or data storage, etc.) that might or might  
>> not be covered by patents or other intellectual property rights.  
>> Also, some of the default SIDs in the Windows implementation that  
>> are required for evaluating group membership (e.g. EVERYONE, etc.)  
>> are also not included in this document.
>
> There was also the IETF:
> draft-brezak-win2k-krb-authz-01.txt
> from October 2002, I still have a copy, but does not address XP, 2003
> or Vista.
>
> Samba has been working on using the PAC created by Windows, and trying
> to get XP to use a Samba/Heimdal created PAC. So they may have  
> addressed
> a lot of these issues.
>
> http://samba.org/ftp/unpacked/trunk-cluster/source/libads/authdata.c
> referes to KERB_VALIDATION_INFO
>
>
>
>> In addition, I do seem to remember that Microsoft at some time  
>> offered a complete description (purportedly including the 18  
>> reserved fields) of the PAC that came with a license explicitly  
>> prohibiting implementation. Since I did not touch this document, I  
>> cannot speak to its actual content.
>> So, as I am not a lawyer, I am quite paranoid when it comes to  
>> other people's IPR and license terms. Therefore I am just  
>> cautioning the use of these specifications, since they are (i) old  
>> (Windows 2000), (ii) not peer-reviewed, and (iii) not published by  
>> an established standards organization with a clear IPR regime.
>> Sorry to be such a pain, but if the majority of this group is  
>> intend on pursuing the NT PAC path, I would suggest that someone  
>> approaches Microsoft to get clarification about the status of the  
>> spec.
>
> I don't think trying to add something to the Microsoft PAC is a  
> good idea.
> But if they add something "Level of assurance" to the PAC using it is
> another story.
>
> Adding another auth_data element of SAML does not require the  
> Microsoft PAC.
>
>
>> Best,
>> Gerald
>> Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Gerald Beuchelt wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, note that there is no patent covenant or even simple  
>>>> licensing terms for the backend infrastructure, so while  
>>>> implementing these data structures might be covered *to the  
>>>> extend that they are documented here), the necessary backend  
>>>> infrastructure might require additional licensing and royalties.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean.  Can you give an example of something  
>>> that might require a license?  In my mind (I'm not a lawyer) an  
>>> implementation is either independent, or not.  Since Microsoft  
>>> doesn't publish actual code for any of this an implementation is  
>>> either pirated from unpublished code, or it's independent, isn't it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[e-mail], or [e-mail]



_______________________________________________
KAML mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kaml