Re: [kitten] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-vanrein-dnstxt-krb1-05.txt

[Rick van Rein <[e-mail]>]

Hello Benjamin,

> I'm sorry this question didn't get answered sooner.

Well timed actually, now we're getting somewhere :)

> There seems to be some level of consensus settling around using PTR for
> _kerberos.fqdn to point to a realm name, with the concordant implications
> for the case of the realm name.

Yes, and I would really like to move forward on that :)

> Since that is using a existing DNS record
> type and making backward-incompatible changes to the Kerberos standard, it
> seems to fit best as a kitten WG document.  (It is not really appropriate
> for individual submissions to make changes to Proposed Standards with
> still-extant working groups.)

Yes, anything else would be silly.

> As was noted a couple times, it would be
> fine to do an Informational document describing the currently-in-use TXT
> records as an individual submission, since there is less of a restriction
> on that case.

For TXT, the friction comes with DNS people.  I've been trying that before.

> It could also be done in kitten, if there is energy for it,
> but since there hasn't been energy for the past 10 (?) years, it seems
> unlikely there will be any now.

Please explain what energy is needed; I am willing to describe the PTR in a new document, and have a student ready to implement it.  Clearly, the list is willing to discuss proposals.  Is there more needed?

The one thing that I would find devastating is when we all want something to be done, but then it doesn't get done.  I currently have some resources to make changes towards broader realm crossover, as long as I understand what needs to be done.

This is assuming that the fact that I'm on the list equals being "in Kitten", which may in fact be another class of thing altogether.   But at the very least I could be the editor of a Kitten document, even if others have more field knowledge about Kerberos than I do.

Thanks,
 -Rick