IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6680 (4337)

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 20 April 2015 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342E51B2CD0 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuMHu5h4R0NQ for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C2D1B2CCC for <kitten@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF72206C0; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xCqu7C1fRLIM; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-177-26-195.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.177.26.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id CEA838188A; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:07:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
References: <20150418215222.7ABFD180206@rfc-editor.org> <4268E41F-712E-425D-B514-C0023D311462@gmail.com> <tsl7ft7zx9f.fsf@mit.edu> <20150419230843.GP13041@localhost> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1504201355350.22210@multics.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:07:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1504201355350.22210@multics.mit.edu> (Benjamin Kaduk's message of "Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:03:16 -0400 (EDT)")
Message-ID: <tslr3rewu53.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/2GXNMmmtoTOkMylNR6vbzHs5z1g>
Cc: "kitten@ietf.org" <kitten@ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@MIT.EDU>, "leifj@sunet.se" <leifj@sunet.se>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [kitten] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6680 (4337)
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten/>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:07:47 -0000

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> writes:

    Benjamin> It sounds like the main objection to the current proposed
    Benjamin> erratum text is in the COMMENT, "Calls which are not
    Benjamin> explicitly permitted to block are assumed to be not
    Benjamin> permitted to block."  Though the new text which explicitly
    Benjamin> calls out the attrs output of GSS_Inquire_name() does
    Benjamin> still have some implicit implications that some calls do
    Benjamin> not block, as well.

    Benjamin> I am not tied to the comment text; we could remove it and
    Benjamin> still have an erratum which stands on its own.  It is a
    Benjamin> bit harder to excise the implicit implication from the new
    Benjamin> text.

Yeah, the comment is what caused me to have a concern.
I think adding a note that this call can block would be helpful.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email