Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] I-DAction:draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries-00.txt

[t.p. <[e-mail]>]

I did a concordance on this I-D, the IANA Kerberos entries
and RFC4120 which yields, crudely,
==========================================

** RFC4120                              I-D
7.5. Protocol Constants and Associated Values 106
7.5.1. Key Usage Numbers            106 s4.4
7.5.2. PreAuthentication Data Types 108 s4.6 already in IANA
7.5.3. Address Types                109 s4.1
7.5.4. Authorization Data Types     109 s4.2
7.5.5. Transited Encoding Types     109 {?? ONLY ONE VALUE}
7.5.6. Protocol Version Number      109 {not worth registering}
7.5.7. Kerberos Message Types       110 {?? why not}
7.5.8. Name Types                   110 s4.5
7.5.9. Error Codes                  110 s4.3
5.5.1  AP-REQ                           s5.1
5.4.1  KDC-REQ                          s5.2
5.3    Ticket Flags                     s5.3

** IANA website 23Oct2012

Checksum Type Numbers RFC 3961 Standards Action or Expert Review (Ken
Raeburn)

Encryption Type Numbers  RFC 3961 Standards Action or Expert Review (Ken
Raeburn)

FAST Armor Types  RFC 6113 Standards Action

FAST Options  RFC 6113 Standards Action

Kerberos Message Transport Types  draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-18
IETF Review

Kerberos TCP Extensions  RFC 5021 IESG Approval or Standards Action

Pre-authentication and Typed Data  RFC 6113 Expert Review (expert may
find that IETF Review is required) (Experts: Sam Hartman - primary,
Larry Zhu - secondary)

Well-Known Kerberos Principal Names draft-ietf-krb-wg-naming-07
Specification Required
Well-Known Kerberos Realm Names draft-ietf-krb-wg-naming-07
Specification
Required
============================================

from which I think that this I-D should contain

7.5.1. Key Usage Numbers            106 s4.4
7.5.3. Address Types                109 s4.1
7.5.4. Authorization Data Types     109 s4.2
7.5.8. Name Types                   110 s4.5
7.5.9. Error Codes                  110 s4.3
5.5.1  AP-REQ                           s5.1
5.4.1  KDC-REQ                          s5.2
5.3    Ticket Flags                     s5.3

(not necessarily in that order)
but should not contain
7.5.2. PreAuthentication Data Types 108 s4.6
as it is already in IANA - but a line saying that would seem
appropriate.
As for

Transited Encoding Types
Protocol Version Number

they do not seem worthy of a registry but I am puzzled by the omission
from the I-D of
 Kerberos Message Types
which looks like an incipient registry to me.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.p." <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; "Tom Yu" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:39 AM

> p.s.  Since this is in the Charter for krb-wg, I assume that the right
> place for discussion, unless and until the WGs are merger, is the
krb-wg
> list and not the kitten one.  I am subscribed to the former but not,
at
> present, to the latter.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "t.p." <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; "Tom Yu" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:51 PM
>
> > The IANA Considerations in this I-D looks rather thin for a document
> > that is setting up an IANA registry, while for the rest of the
> document,
> > I find myself overwhelmed by
> > detail, lacking an overview, a framework into which to put things.
> >
> > A registry usually has
> > - Name, unique within the IANA namespace
> > - Administratrive restrictions
> > - Technical restrictions
> > - Initial contents
> > and at least the first, I would expect to see under IANA
> Considerations,
> > with that same name appearing in the rest of the document.  The rest
> of
> > information may then be in that section or else be pointed to from
> that
> > section.
> >
> > Here I see
> > "This document requests that IANA create several registries for
> >    Kebreros protocol parameters.  "
> >
> > Reading the rest of the document, with each registry being
identified
> by
> > a prefix (in practice, one, two or more prefixes) it would seem that
> > some nine or so registries are being placed under IANA, with the
> initial
> > contents coming, in several cases, from section 7 of RFC4120.
> >
> > Um, sounds like a bottom-up design, a possible recipe for confusion.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Yu" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:22 AM
> > > From: [e-mail]
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:52:22 -0700
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available.
> > >  This draft is a work item of the Common Authentication Technology
> > Next Generation Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > > Title           : Move Kerberos protocol parameter registries to
IANA
> > > Author(s)       : Tom Yu
> > > Filename        :
draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries-00.txt
> > > Date            : 2012-10-15
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registr
ies
> > >
htmlized version available at:
> >
>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries-00
> > >
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg