[Ietf-krb-wg] preliminary review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-14.txt

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Sun, 30 August 2009 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-krb-wg-bounces@lists.anl.gov>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6393A6C04 for <ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dGmguhwC1O1G for <ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECAA3A6B91 for <krb-wg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by localhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0C832; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lists.anl.gov (katydid.it.anl.gov [146.137.96.32]) by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C3A2D; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:07 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from katydid.it.anl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B3E80E1A; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:07 -0500 (CDT)
X-Original-To: ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov
Delivered-To: ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by lists.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E63B80E02 for <ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) id 0FDE42B; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:05 -0500 (CDT)
Delivered-To: ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by localhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A89F2D for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mailrelay.anl.gov (mailrelay.anl.gov [130.202.101.22]) by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0300E2B for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.it.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA8E7CC098; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mailrelay.anl.gov ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailrelay.anl.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23490-07; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mailgateway.anl.gov (mailgateway.anl.gov [130.202.101.28]) by mailrelay2.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2497CC08F for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:25:04 -0500 (CDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoYCACZvmkqAAtnGgWdsb2JhbACbJAEBFiSrS4U4iEqCMQ6BWwWKew
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,299,1249275600"; d="scan'208";a="30505453"
Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.217.198]) by mailgateway.anl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2009 14:25:04 -0500
Received: from ATLANTIS-GHC.PC.CS.CMU.EDU (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.216.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n7UJP3Ih016304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:25:03 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov
Message-ID: <9C30088742EFE2EAFB92FCF2@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at frigga.it.anl.gov
Cc: jhutz@cmu.edu
Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] preliminary review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-14.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a list for the IETF Kerberos Working Group. {WORLDPUB, EXTERNAL}" <ietf-krb-wg.lists.anl.gov>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/options/ietf-krb-wg>, <mailto:ietf-krb-wg-request@lists.anl.gov?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.anl.gov/pipermail/ietf-krb-wg>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-krb-wg-request@lists.anl.gov?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg>, <mailto:ietf-krb-wg-request@lists.anl.gov?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-krb-wg-bounces@lists.anl.gov
Errors-To: ietf-krb-wg-bounces@lists.anl.gov

I'm in the process of doing my review and writeup of the preauth framework 
document.  My practice is generally to do a basic review for process issues 
and to prepare the bulk of the writeup, then read the document in detail to 
identify any additional issues related to the protocol or document content. 
What follows is a list of process-related issues I found during the first 
part of this review.  All of these require some kind of response before the 
document can proceed, though some may not require any changes.

I will be proceeding with the remainder of my review without first waiting 
for responses to these.  Look for comments from that review soon.

-- Jeff



ID-nits points out that this is an old document but does not contain a 
disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 content.  I know the authors are painfully aware 
of this issue, so I don't think I need to explain it.  Please be sure that 
such a disclaimer is included if it is needed.

The reference to draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals looks like it should 
be normative, as it is needed to understand and implement the specification 
of the kdc-follow-referrals option in section 6.5.2.

References to draft-ietf-krb-wg-anon, draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals, 
and draft-sakane-krb-cross-problem-statement are out of date and should be 
updated.

The descriptions of IANA registration policies in section 8 require a 
normative reference to RFC2434.

Has Tom verified that the pata registry contents in section 8.1 are 
consistent with his current records?  It's doubly important to get this 
right since we are turning this registry over to IANA.

This document contains a lot of RFC2119 requirements language, and also 
many uses of the lowercase words "may", "should", and "required" which are 
not intended as requirements language.  I did a cursory review and believe 
these are mostly in order, but it's probably worth rechecking to make sure 
you haven't left any in lowercase that should be uppercase or vice versa.

I need someone (preferably more than one someone) to verify that the ASN.1 
module in Appendix C actually compiles.

I'm pretty sure Joel Weber's name is spelled with only one 'b'.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg