IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] IETF74 krb-wg minutes

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Fri, 24 April 2009 20:38 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 B54F73A68D5 for <ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kPof4RI2MkT2 for <ietfarch-krb-wg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E253A680D for <krb-wg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by localhost.ctd.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D9F38; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lists.anl.gov (katydid.it.anl.gov [146.137.96.32]) by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5632F2E; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from katydid.it.anl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE3780DFD; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:24 -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 8861780DFB for <ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) id 7B8292B; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
Delivered-To: ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov
Received: from mailhost.anl.gov (mailhost.anl.gov [130.202.113.50]) by localhost.ctd.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F9C2E for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mailrelay.anl.gov (mailrelay.anl.gov [130.202.101.22]) by mailhost.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713F62B for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.it.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6107CC05A; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -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 26210-08; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mailgateway.anl.gov (mailgateway.anl.gov [130.202.101.28]) by mailrelay2.anl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D15B7CC056 for <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:39:22 -0500 (CDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwFAEPA8UlT8bEn/2dsb2JhbACBUM53g3QF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,243,1238994000"; d="scan'208";a="26333214"
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com ([83.241.177.39]) by mailgateway.anl.gov with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 15:39:22 -0500
Received: from c80-216-29-127.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.29.127] helo=mocca.josefsson.org) by yxa-v.extundo.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <simon@josefsson.org>) id 1LxSB2-00012W-PP; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:39:18 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Larry Zhu <lzhu@windows.microsoft.com>
References: <AB1E5627D2489D45BD01B84BD5B900461500A64ACE@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:090424:ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov::JvlYaGGjde43W6TS:PHk
X-Hashcash: 1:22:090424:lzhu@windows.microsoft.com::yiOa+bFOLlOH77ki:5XDP
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:39:15 +0200
In-Reply-To: <AB1E5627D2489D45BD01B84BD5B900461500A64ACE@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> (Larry Zhu's message of "Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:20:52 -0700")
Message-ID: <87k559lrbg.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at frigga.it.anl.gov
Cc: "ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov" <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] IETF74 krb-wg minutes
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-krb-wg-bounces@lists.anl.gov
Errors-To: ietf-krb-wg-bounces@lists.anl.gov

Larry Zhu <lzhu@windows.microsoft.com> writes:

> I have posted the krb-wg meeting minutes for IETF74 at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/krb-wg.txt. Please send
> Jeff and me your comments or corrections.

This part related to krb5starttls

  We decided that starttls should require certificate validation using
  pre-shared certificates.

does not match my recollection of the meeting.  First, I don't recall
that any decisions were made at all for krb5starttls during the meeting,
instead it was referred to the list.  Secondly, I think what we actually
discussed and had some agreement on was to NOT require certificate
validation.  See jabber discussions at the beginning of:

http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/krb-wg/2009-03-24.txt

Further, this part of the summary:

  The intended status of the starttls document was also not decided and
  it was only discussed briefly in the jabber room.

I don't see any discussion about the intended status in the jabber logs?
As far as I recall from the IETF 73 meeting, it was suggested that both
krb5starttls and FAST would move forward as experimental.  I think it
would be better to move forward both as standards track, but if the WG
feels otherwise I would accept that.  Is this the current thinking?
What is the current thinking about document status of FAST and
krb5starttls?

/Simon
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
ietf-krb-wg@lists.anl.gov
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email