IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-kitten-iakerb-00.txt

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> Tue, 16 April 2013 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ghudson@mit.edu>
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 C896821F974E for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
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 M9-1O9+yecFS for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-2.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3243B21F9748 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190d-b7f716d000005557-94-516d70b9ffe9
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 24.F7.21847.9B07D615; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id r3GFdaQZ009453; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:39:36 -0400
Received: from [18.189.109.93] ([18.189.109.93]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as ghudson@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r3GFdW0j019827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:39:36 -0400
Message-ID: <516D70B4.1060803@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:39:32 -0400
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
References: <20130411064110.29519.54840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001201ce3695$c13005e0$439011a0$@augustcellars.com> <005301ce36e6$265d9bd0$7318d370$@augustcellars.com> <51671F8E.3050701@mit.edu> <006301ce36fb$1dc3b760$594b2620$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <006301ce36fb$1dc3b760$594b2620$@augustcellars.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hRV1t1ZkBtoMPu1uMXq6d/ZLI5uXsXi wOSxcc50No8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGVM2hBbcICt4s3ySawNjFNYuxg5OSQETCR6 Zz5kgrDFJC7cW88GYgsJ7GOUOD8nrYuRC8jeyCix6uIMJghnLZPE12U9zCBVvAJqEu0f7oPZ LAKqEv+X7GQBsdkElCUOnv0GZosKhEhcfLqFFaJeUOLkzCdgcREBdYmtq2+CbWYWEJa4sH0v WI2wQJjE4sb5bBDLfjBKTFu+CKyBU8BBYvqie+wQp0pKLJrWyQLRrCPxru8BM4QtL7H97Rzm CYxCs5Dsm4WkbBaSsgWMzKsYZVNyq3RzEzNzilOTdYuTE/PyUot0jfRyM0v0UlNKNzGCA1uS dwfju4NKhxgFOBiVeHgD5HMChVgTy4orcw8xSnIwKYnyRuXnBgrxJeWnVGYkFmfEF5XmpBYf YpTgYFYS4T3rCJTjTUmsrEotyodJSXOwKInzXkm56S8kkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTleHgUJLgzQIZ KliUmp5akZaZU4KQZuLgBBnOAzQ8E6SGt7ggMbc4Mx0if4pRUUqcdytIQgAkkVGaB9cLSzyv GMWBXhHmnQFSxQNMWnDdr4AGMwENPrAqG2RwSSJCSqqBcWbTp1LPCatYdjMarjWLm7OO9cJi rXNB+61t2Sfs8z2Tn7q246Jx63/eaflZjLs0L331L3mz4vwNoSb5o7vna0n9DhVQMulvYPRt VZ3eV6x8fB/fk86EH/5OyxW5pmnF8oSqsmpJix1zZiiPKdeUPpTw+OeRb0d7bprkvkzXOmry SPKw8NNmJZbijERDLeai4kQANuJ//BcDAAA=
Cc: kitten@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [kitten] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-kitten-iakerb-00.txt
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:39:38 -0000

On 04/11/2013 05:25 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> We can easily define both numbers as extensions and say that servers must do
> both, so that does not seem to be a big deal.

That's enough in the long term, and I can't think of anything which
would be helpful to initiators in the short term.  (Even if we could
find a way for acceptors to indicate whether they support
draft-zhu-ws-kerb or draft-ietf-krb-wg-iakerb or both, the only
acceptors who would implement it would be the ones are are agnostic anyway.)

> Is there any difference between the key usage of 41 and r2 that is
> significant?

The key usage is just a number, used as input for RFC 3961 key
derivation.  I didn't find any other differences between the checksums
in my reading of the two drafts; they both appeared to use the same keys
and contents.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email