IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 06 June 2012 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 DC63B21F8897 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.633, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6]
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 IdZXy6dl4nPq for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F9521F8892 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D365406F for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=c9DZHPf2vkfZJI2n+UULp0Zqltx9tQNUYMrz8nQRidRz JIaJDLTvl9UzGggzJLnndfaI3PAhdZaY0QTXgJo0VVnGwarOPeMP9UAGmJpzrF+8 g4Boceecq1dpBSYMht9JnWdzWQ6md3f9uXD9DQF8xSCS9h6YyezbB5NxF9OwE9c=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=qT68MEpVVdws4BoQzi2RAlMC+6c=; b=IYeT00Ivh/5 Gji5UnoemZhvFxsTONoC8nDw0w3bvcJPuxmoa5BjiEy0g8FCktPCxjiq+EqZjVNQ fRC1KMTUSChlUVS/Fj8h6YCc2m5YwG3LQRezWcEcFfoe2B8soFPThVpKp6Y0VSuH D7pyLoXdHqcUMfdTuZnxYi9IGZE3LJBU=
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDE2154058 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so8987591dac.31 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.220.231 with SMTP id pz7mr17981929pbc.110.1339004596418; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.15.134 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BD0411A9-F243-46EB-B318-3A0994A17559@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <4FC6AEDA.4010709@cs.tcd.ie> <4FCF3F47.10205@cs.tcd.ie> <BD0411A9-F243-46EB-B318-3A0994A17559@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:43:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiQLYhbNctrV83XGZaRJ0cuX2nqRt+LtobyPjOz7o=tGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, 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 17:43:18 -0000

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Henry B. Hotz <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I'm cc'ing kitten, since the IANA registry in question is nominally a gssapi, not a kerberos one.

The registry being the service name registry, which IIRC includes the
IANA port service names by implication.  Anyways, no objection.

> 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.

I agree, it is what it is.  We should make the exception.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email