[kitten] status of draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries
Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Thu, 07 November 2013 22:56 UTC
Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
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 133CD11E8235 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KcUgX0P4OuLU for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC81D11E815B for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074422-b7f028e000003e57-11-527c1a667918
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 89.10.15959.66A1C725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id rA7MtXbv025189 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:55:33 -0500
Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (cathode-dark-space.mit.edu [18.18.1.96]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id rA7MtWD3025106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:55:33 -0500
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id rA7MtVAj000233; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:55:31 -0500 (EST)
To: kitten@ietf.org
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:55:31 -0500
Message-ID: <ldvzjpfddp8.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 30
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrLIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrpsmVRNk0DKXy+Lo5lUsDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKWPh4PVtBP0fF0Wv72BoYp7J1MXJySAiYSCzv2ccEYYtJXLi3 HijOxSEkMJtJ4v6M2+wQzjFGiZ4rZ1kgnMdMEr/m7wVrFxLoZJRYeFAJxBYREJbYvfUdM4gt LGArMfHnTtYuRg4ONgFpiaOLy0DCLAKqEhenX2UDCfMKWEisvKADEuYR4JR4dPYy2BG8AoIS J2c+YQGxmQW0JG78e8k0gZFvFpLULCSpBYxMqxhlU3KrdHMTM3OKU5N1i5MT8/JSi3RN9XIz S/RSU0o3MYJDyUVpB+PPg0qHGAU4GJV4eAsuVAcJsSaWFVfmHmKU5GBSEuWtkawJEuJLyk+p zEgszogvKs1JLT7EKMHBrCTCu/c7UDlvSmJlVWpRPkxKmoNFSZz3Fod9kJBAemJJanZqakFq EUxWhoNDSYLXG2SoYFFqempFWmZOCUKaiYMTZDgP0PB+kBre4oLE3OLMdIj8KUZFKXHeNJCE AEgiozQPrhcW668YxYFeEeaNBKniAaYJuO5XQIOZgAaH/KoEGVySiJCSamBM6rgms5n3XJFl Rvu8JD13hiaWRfYbovj/KE1rWnp7p6i73zJN51YHUfbT889M3nqBZ01XgpWm8PPpFy/s2PvU xvfVrgL5b88Orxe/8zZ4ilbp7w25tjf1JybFBvffevOovvzb3L3WAlvN1z5w9OTd99jLetr2 h1vNE86E2llk7Z/1lcNBanGBEktxRqKhFnNRcSIA61+VUtACAAA=
Subject: [kitten] status of draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:56:04 -0000
I recently finished cleaning up after an accident in my Kerberos numbers database that partially overwrote symbolic name information. I think the text is mostly ready. I am thinking of adding guidance about ticket flags and KDC options to recommend that future assignments should reflect the existing practice where a KDC option requests a ticket flag, the bit numbers should be the same in the KDC option and the ticket flag. I would like volunteers to help check the list of existing assignments, possibly dividing the work by number type. My rough counts are: addrtype 11 nametype 14 adtype 23 errcode 128 keyusage 47 apoption 3 kdcoption 22 ticketflag 16 This checking would involve looking through RFCs, Internet Drafts, and implementation source code to make sure that nothing that is worth registering is missed, and that there are no number conflicts. We can work out timelines among the volunteers, with the help of the chairs. Thanks.