Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-gss-cb-hash-agility

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sam,

On 12/08/11 16:59, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> I'd appreciate responses to the rest of the AD comments. Here are
> responses I can make.
> 
> 
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>     Stephen> 1) the write-up says that the WG need to figure out where
>     Stephen> to put the new IANA registry for extension types, have you
>     Stephen> figured that out yet? (The write-up also asks for IETF LC
>     Stephen> to not start until that's sorted out.)
> 
> No one objected to my proposed text.
> Authors, can you incorporate  my proposed text creating the registry
> into the next version?

Great.

>     Stephen> 2) Where's the key usage number 43 come from? (I do see
>     Stephen> 7.5.1 from rfc 4120) Is there an IANA registry for these?
>     Stephen> (I didn't see it.) If not, should there be? If so, should
>     Stephen> this document just create that too? (And what's the update
>     Stephen> rule - FCFS?) If this is better not done as an IANA
>     Stephen> registry (or not now) then I'd appreciate the explanation
>     Stephen> in any case, even if that's not added to the document.
>     Stephen> (But why not add it?)
> 
> This is not yet managed by IANA; draft-lha-krb-wg-some-numbers-to-iana
> creates the registry.  Tom Yu is keeping track meanwhile. We discussed
> the big outstanding issue with Love's draft at IETF 80; we expect to be
> making progress shortly.

That's fine thanks.

>     Stephen> 3) A test vector for one popular variation of get_mic would
>     Stephen> be very good to add - with all the endian stuff I could see
>     Stephen> this being done wrong quite easily but in a way that a
>     Stephen> single implementation would not show up.
> 
> Can someone volunteer to include this?
> I agree that this would be really helpful.

Me too obviously:-)

>     Stephen> 3) id-nits has a couple of warnings - can you check if
>     Stephen> those are ok and fix if not?
> 
> I did check as part of doing the writeup.

When I did it from this URL [1] I get the output below. Could be they're
spurious warnings I guess but I just wanted to check.

Cheers,
Stephen.

[1]
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-krb-wg-gss-cb-hash-agility-07.txt

 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4
     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses,
     they should be changed.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but
     was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the
     disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) --
     however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning.
     Boilerplate error?

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