Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc2853bis-05.txt (GSSAPI JAVA BINDINGS)

Mayank Upadhyay <mayank@google.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mayank@google.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D313A67B7; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Urfcl0BVvzzn; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.45.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A163A69B4; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n52HNk2v000723; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:23:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1243963426; bh=QzMt0y+muOBFNuGKaYM4OPXId6g=; h=DomainKey-Signature:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type:X-System-Of-Record; b=I zChp6KVfH/E1R4em8i1xQdlwH4AAds0lMdNEek+NRvrHo3JIO3+L+BMoCZT1H75HRVC vGS63mWsRseJgGTIWQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=ALcm4BTqzLsEXeR8wTNLPxXORsSsUHW+gCZxAXiSvZyr5lp8pW4kU3kF/kYCMe2vV tkcgMFdlpvWajydxxHlmA==
Received: from bwz8 (bwz8.prod.google.com [10.188.26.8]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n52HNWJp015522; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:23:44 -0700
Received: by bwz8 with SMTP id 8so8343554bwz.46 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.112.204 with SMTP id x12mr3874439fap.70.1243963423363; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D80EDFF2AD83E648BD1164257B9B091201E883@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <D80EDFF2AD83E648BD1164257B9B091201E883@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <6f7ed4930906021023t657b2570s3e76993dc2cb2084@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mayank Upadhyay <mayank@google.com>
To: Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5b1f4f6b801046b60cdf3"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:01:37 -0700
Cc: "seema.malkani@sun.com" <seema.malkani@sun.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "mayank+ietf-2853@google.com" <mayank+ietf-2853@google.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Seema Malkani <seema.malkani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc2853bis-05.txt (GSSAPI JAVA BINDINGS)
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:45:40 -0000

FYI, Seema no longer has the email address seema.malkani@sun.com. I'm CC'ing
her on an alternate email address: seema.malkani@gmail.com.

-Mayank

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I am reviewing this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments. Feel free to forward to any appropriate
> forum.
>
>
>
> This refresh of RFC 2853 (GSSAPI JAVA BINDINGS) is almost trivial. The only
> technical changes are the renumbering of error codes and OID values because
> the values in RFC 2853 were internally inconsistent, missing, or (in the
> case of OIDs) obsolete. There are a handful of other minor corrections in
> the document (none technical). The document was also refreshed to use the
> now-current copyright notices, etc.
>
>
>
> Since all of the error codes correspond to fatal errors, it is unlikely
> that even interoperation with an implementation with bad codes could cause
> security problems (just confusing error messages). The security
> considerations seemed reasonable in RFC 2853 and they are unchanged here.
>
>
>
>                 --Charlie
>