Re: [kitten] RFC 5742 review of draft-hotz-kx509

"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov> Wed, 06 June 2012 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238C221F8685 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgLUB9DPRUpH for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8498C21F8675 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.107] (adsl-99-41-56-221.dsl.lsan03.sbcglobal.net [99.41.56.221]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q56HBOXg010660 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits) verified NO); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:11:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4FCF3F47.10205@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:11:24 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD0411A9-F243-46EB-B318-3A0994A17559@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <4FC6AEDA.4010709@cs.tcd.ie> <4FCF3F47.10205@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Source-Sender: hotz@jpl.nasa.gov
X-JPL-Spam-Score': 80%
Cc: draft-hotz-kx509@tools.ietf.org, Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [kitten] RFC 5742 review of draft-hotz-kx509
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:11:34 -0000

I'm cc'ing kitten, since the IANA registry in question is nominally a gssapi, not a kerberos one.

Your comment about the underscore is interesting.  Since we're documenting an existing protocol, the underscore is what it is.  Should we resolve the issue by requesting an exception, or by deleting the request for an addition to the registry?

I'd prefer an exception, but I'm OK either way.

On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:30 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've done my 5742 review of this and reckon that its doesn't
> conflict with the planned work on the topic in the kerberos
> WG, so I've put this on the June 21st IESG telechat agenda
> for the other ADs to see if they agree or not.
> 
> Note that I also had some comments on the text itself. [1]
> The authors/ISE might want to take a look at those in the
> meantime, in particular the IANA registration comment.
> (Authors - I think the right thing here is to do what the
> ISE wants in terms of any possible revisions, but from
> the IESG point of view, I'd guess changes you might want
> to make to address those comments if made in the next week
> wouldn't be a problem.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen.
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hotz-kx509/writeup/
> 
> On 05/31/2012 12:35 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The independent submissions editor (ISE) has asked the
>> IESG to do an RFC 5742 review of this [1] document.
>> 
>> That review is to check that the publication of this
>> independent stream submission would not conflict with
>> IETF work.
>> 
>> In this case, the work is clearly related to the pkix
>> and kerberos working groups, hence this mail.
>> 
>> Note: this mail is not a request for a technical review
>> of the content, but rather asking if publication would
>> somehow be damaging to the work of these wgs. (If you
>> do have technical comments, send them to the author
>> or ISE). If you're not sure about any of that, then
>> read RFC 5742. [2]
>> 
>> I'll take silence as meaning that nobody thinks that
>> there's a conflict. If someone thinks there is a
>> conflict let me, the list, or the wg chairs know. In
>> due course, I'll be doing my own evaluation as well
>> of course, as will other IESG members.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Stephen.
>> 
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hotz-kx509-04
>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pkix mailing list
>> pkix@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>> 
>> 

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu