[Fwd: Kitten doc reviews]

[Jeffrey Altman <[e-mail]>]

--- Begin Message ---

Here are my reviews for you..

-derek

draft-ietf-kitten-stackable-pseudo-mechs-02.txt

Abstract:

   This document defines and formalizes the concept of stackable pseudo-
   mechanisms, and associated concept of composite mechanisms, for the
   Generic Security Service Application Programming Interface (GSS-API),
   as well as several utility functions.

This first sentence is awkward.  I think you should remove the first
comma and add a "the", so it reads:   ... stackable pseudo-mechanisms and
the associated concept ...


3. Mechanism Composition Issues

 What about mechanism ordering?  Security Modules cannot necessarily
get transposed, or the ordering matters.  Also, send vs. receive order
might need to be different.


4.4.  Compatibility with the Basic GSS-APIv2u1 Interfaces

   o  Which composite mechanisms, if any, are indicated through
      GSS_Indicate_mechs() SHOULD be configurable.

This reads awkwardly.  A better sentence would read:

     Any composite mechanisms indicated through GSS_Indicate_mechs()
     SHOULD be configurable.


5.1.  New GSS-API Function Interfaces

This section looks like it uses the exact same text as 4.4, but
just in a paragraph instead of bullet-items.  What's the point
of that?  It also has the same syntactic issue as 4.4:

                                                GSS_Indicate_mechs()
   MAY indicate support for some, all or none of the available composite
   mechanisms; which composite mechanisms, if any, are indicated through
   GSS_Indicate_mechs() SHOULD be configurable.  

should probably get re-written in the same way as 4.4:

  ...  any composite mechanisms indidicated through GSS_Indicate_mechs()
   SHOULD be configurable.


5.1.4.  GSS_Indicate_negotiable_mechs()


   o  peer_type_known BOOLEAN, -- indicates whether the peer is known to
      support or not supprot the stackable pseudo-mechanism framework.

supprot -> support


   GSS_Inquire_cred()), but composite mechanisms will be included either
   implicitly or implicitly as per the following rules:

"implicitly or implicitly"?  I think it should be "explicitly or implicitly"


General Comments...

This document talks about "rules for mechanism composition" but
nowhere does it discuss a way to encode these rules.  How do I express
these rules?  The draft mentions a means to upgrade these rules, but
not where these rules need to get stored.



draft-ietf-kitten-extended-mech-inquiry-02.txt


No Introduction?


3.  New GSS-API Interfaces

The opening sentence is awkwardly composed.  I recommend changing it to:

   Today GSS-API applications face the problem of how to select from
   multiple GSS-API mechanisms that may be available.


3.5.  New GSS-API Function Interfaces

This section uses similar text to the other draft.  In particular:

   support for any stackable pseduo-mechanisms.  GSS_Indicate_mechs()
   MAY indicate support for some, all or none of the available composite
   mechanisms; which composite mechanisms, if any, are indicated through
   GSS_Indicate_mechs() SHOULD be configurable.  GSS_Acquire_cred() and

The 'which' portion should be re-written as suggested for the previous
draft.



General comments:

Again, the document mentions the composition rules but doesn't
specify them or how to use them.

This document has no security considerations.

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

--- End Message ---

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten