IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] Review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-service-discovery-00

"Henry B (Hank) Hotz, CISSP" <hbhotz@oxy.edu> Fri, 24 March 2017 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hbhotz@oxy.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 7525D129504 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 RnNQWHlflaJf for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout.easymail.ca (mailout.easymail.ca [64.68.201.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC4212998B for <kitten@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341D7EA1A; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (easymail-mailout.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njyJfNr5xZoc; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:22:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.129] (24-205-82-163.dhcp.psdn.ca.charter.com [24.205.82.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00F6FEA19; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: "Henry B (Hank) Hotz, CISSP" <hbhotz@oxy.edu>
In-Reply-To: <e9ccafcf-55e9-72e2-3129-c681a7920dfd@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:22:56 -0700
Cc: kitten@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <008F4AF2-95A0-425F-979F-26CC394822E1@oxy.edu>
References: <x7dzige39sj.fsf@equal-rites.mit.edu> <3FD27BFF-5090-4505-852C-E8766BBAA93B@oxy.edu> <e9ccafcf-55e9-72e2-3129-c681a7920dfd@mit.edu>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/MKFDK7wyKfXpA2klmgV9da_yGmM>
Subject: Re: [kitten] Review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-service-discovery-00
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:23:01 -0000

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 
> On 03/21/2017 04:16 PM, Henry B (Hank) Hotz, CISSP wrote:
>> Mildly disagree. 
>> 
>> Mainly because there is RFC 6860.
> 
> I think Hank meant RFC 6880 (KDC Information Model), to answer Jeffrey
> Altman's question.

Yes. (Copy-by-hand considered dangerous.)

> I will argue that in complexity, a discovery mechanism is small, an
> information model is medium, and an administrative protocol is large.  I
> argued that the URI discovery draft creates:
> 
>  [discovery] -> <empty void of no admin protocol>
> 
> Adding RFC 6860 into the mix just changes the picture to:
> 
>  [disc] -> <empty void of no admin protocol> -> [info model]
> 
> They don't connect up, and the missing piece is much larger than the
> pieces on either side.  As there is no indication that a complete
> picture is forthcoming, I believe that any DNS discovery protocol for
> the implementation-specific admin service should also be considered
> implementation-specific.

My opinion hasn’t changed. I think the service discovery protocols for everything ought to be similar so they ought to be specified together.

I will note that failing to include something I wanted is not a reason to oppose the entire draft. I can live with being in the rough for this point.


Personal email.  hbhotz@oxy.edu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email