Re: [kitten] Windows Intent to revive and implement IAKerb draft-ietf-kitten-iakerb-03

[Jeffrey Altman <[e-mail]>]

Please note that draft 3 does not include all of the feedback provided 
on draft 2.

The draft 2 feedback starts with this archived message

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/5l6CknOZBF39aZps7wQIsl_L-6o/

and the diff between drafts 2 and 3 can be found here

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-kitten-iakerb-03

The discussion around error handling and default realm determination is 
particularly important in my opinion.

I do not believe there are any implementations of draft 3.

Jeffrey Altman

On 2/16/2023 6:57 PM, Steve Syfuhs (AP) 
(Steve.Syfuhs=[e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Howdy folks,
>
> I’m a developer on the Windows auth team that oversees Kerberos 
> development. We were handed the torch from Larry, Michiko, and crew 
> when they went off to do other exciting things.
>
> We’re currently in the process of implementing IAKerb as per the 
> latest expired draft and want to revive it and see it through to full 
> RFC. Happy to go into detail about why, but the benefits are I think 
> fairly self explanatory.
>
> Unfortunately there’s a fair amount of institutional knowledge around 
> this protocol that’s been lost to time and I was wondering if someone 
> could provide background on where things were last? What is required 
> in order to see it through?
>
> We have a few open questions, specifically around interop.
>
> What is the state of the MIT implementation? The draft refers to 
> interop with earlier versions. Is this something we need to reasonably 
> care about? The draft says the Finished checksum key usage is 
> implemented as int 42, but specced as 41. Why wasn’t 42 used in the 
> spec (that’s otherwise a rather obnoxious interop hack)?
>
> As mentioned, happy to go into more detail about our plans.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten