Re: [kitten] Interested in re-reviewing draft-ietf-kitten-channel-bound-flag?
Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 10 May 2017 22:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 2794412948D for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=augustcellars.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rfev4TAKpsDr for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009781200C5 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=augustcellars.com; s=winery; c=simple/simple; t=1494455672; h=from:subject:to:date:message-id; bh=OkDb0isJMrkwkI1znv/OSfY9YjAKR6/a3algWC6+r4I=; b=QUSNNSz/5L+fz0sJzM0MxYsa00sYEnoM4+IvIkCRRj/BcXR4+1hSMvPdvgwJSa5wv7cG5NSZEoj VpfZ0enZiZp/l/Y7JHeeZoSiQFCHn9e3YQzx1o3+6V1frfojN7C4yc2wGdLZlk0B2MJ+e5SkJ/Wuh qjagdRGeH0xbCLzyvficqJVPhPs5qlv+9Cn27buMFV3qiCZWkdLut+vsXJnk0I1IzK4vOWsTmbX08 bf84sbv9Ccyk3cVRDsy+X263s2WAFQpt/wgVpbgfc0qXs4cRb+F7+RbRLoafOOQE/q6AMR7lkP7Sa el4q9GBfkW+j7Gg4ySWEfNzlq0a2UAYE8mpA==
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) by mail4.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:32 -0700
Received: from Hebrews (24.21.96.37) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:22 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: kitten@ietf.org
References: <20170509152141.GD30306@kduck.kaduk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170509152141.GD30306@kduck.kaduk.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:34:42 -0700
Message-ID: <006301d2c9dd$9fc4b5b0$df4e2110$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL7JJ8hsGzx88odyrZpjf6RqFUC7p+dcczQ
X-Originating-IP: [24.21.96.37]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/fnKGc6O24Vc4XP_ZIWB-jd92yZ0>
Subject: Re: [kitten] Interested in re-reviewing draft-ietf-kitten-channel-bound-flag?
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 May 2017 22:34:45 -0000
Nico, Is there a reason why you did not add the gss_get_context_flags function? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:22 AM To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Subject: Interested in re-reviewing draft-ietf-kitten-channel-bound-flag? Hi Jim, Back in 2013 you had reviewed Nico's individual draft for a gss channel binding flag (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten/current/msg03839.html), and in the recent call for topics there is supposed to be renewed interest in finishing that topic. Would you be interested in reviewing the latest version to help us get enough reviews to declare consensus? ("No" is a fine answer; it's been four years and a lot can change in four years.) Thanks, Ben