Re: [kitten] WGLC for three "bis" documents: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc4402bis-00, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-00

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> Fri, 20 February 2015 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39761A019B for <>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:53:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NmvTBivpiyx1 for <>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A4371A0203 for <>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:53:13 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074424-f79356d000004839-e9-54e7acc82eb8
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C7.4B.18489.8CCA7E45; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:53:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id t1KLrBGp002739; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:53:12 -0500
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id t1KLr9TE022980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:53:11 -0500
Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by ( id t1KLr98S022037; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:53:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:53:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrXtizfMQg4MzlCy+tj1gszi6eRWL A5PHkiU/mTxWTj3NHsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXRe3A6S8Ep/opJ7ZdZGhi/8XQxcnJICJhI dN+8xgxhi0lcuLeeDcQWEljMJDHpa2QXIxeQvZFRYvn1U0wQziEmiZMtN1ggnAZGicOnr4C1 swhoS9xf18UKYrMJqEjMfLMRbJSIgLDE7q3vwGqYBUQk/qy6zQrSLCwwk1Gi80wzE0iCU8BJ ou9ZI1gDr4CDxOd1Nxgh7nCUmHZpGzuILSqgI7F6/xQWiBpBiZMzn7BADNWSWD59G8sERsFZ SFKzkKQWMDKtYpRNya3SzU3MzClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXXy80s0UtNKd3ECApWdheVHYzNh5QO MQpwMCrx8FZMfxYixJpYVlyZe4hRkoNJSZT398rnIUJ8SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5qcWHGCU4mJVE eOctAMrxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR5N/3gCxESSE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJynBwKEnwnlsN1ChYlJqe WpGWmVOCkGbi4AQZzgM0/C5IDW9xQWJucWY6RP4Uo6KUOG8TSEIAJJFRmgfXC0smrxjFgV4R 5g0AqeIBJiK47ldAg5mABh/4+gxkcEkiQkqqgVGJK99w2Q2DyNbZ9388veFgt/Bw1lT5pNvb eRKVV/6dotVR4ps9+2Fu2Qvh8z2fFgaK+9q5WjHxn5kff1Os97DgV4YbvBWXmuLra4PKA32+ b27dcHPO/mM/duy+dfuf5iqBnE+X5l9Iu3U4aV4si8yJbbvrfznvUhP5deQr1xou7bOJKkfn Oc5UYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAAiZdTgEDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: hartmans@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [kitten] WGLC for three "bis" documents: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc4402bis-00, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:53:31 -0000

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> This message begins the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for the following
> three documents: "A Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) for the Kerberos V
> Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API)
> Mechanism" <draft-ietf-kitten-rfc4402bis-00>, "Generic Security Service
> API Version 2: Java Bindings Update" <draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01>,
> and "Anonymity Support for Kerberos" <draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-00>.
> Because there are three documents under review, and the whole body of the
> documents are up for re-review (not just the updates), the WGLC is
> extended to four weeks, so the WGLC will end on Tuesday February 17th,
> 2015.  The drafts are available at:
(an -02 witih editorial fixes was issued during the WGLC)

Now that the WGLC period is over, I've gone through the on-list discussion
to determine the outcome of the WGLC.

Shawn has made some editorial fixes to rfc4402bis already; there are a few
more, but then I think we can put out an -01 and progress it forward.

There seems to be general agreement on the GSSException additions in
rfc5653bis, but further discussion is needed on the preexisting issue
raised about the stream-based methods.  It seems likely that the resulting
document update will be substantial enough to require another WGLC.

rfc6112bis received the fewest comments, which were mostly editorial but a
couple minor substantive issues were raised.  A new version should be
issued incorporating the suggested changes.  The minor substantive issues
may be minor enough that another WGLC is not needed, but it is not
entirely clear since the new text is not finalized yet.  Sam, you
submitted the -00 -- will you be able to submit the update as well?