IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [SPKM] Re: [67th IETF] SPKM3 BOF announcement

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Thu, 12 October 2006 21:06 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY7l5-0003n0-Bc; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:06:27 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY7l4-0003ms-IE for spkm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:06:26 -0400
Received: from nwkea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.42.26]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GY7l3-0001hy-2j for spkm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:06:26 -0400
Received: from centralmail3brm.Central.Sun.COM ([129.147.62.199]) by nwkea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k9CL6K6o011483 for <spkm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by centralmail3brm.Central.Sun.COM (8.13.6+Sun/8.13.6/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id k9CL6Je3025122 for <spkm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:06:19 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.13.6+Sun/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9CL6J3x013068; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:06:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.13.6+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id k9CL6Iwq013067; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:06:18 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:06:18 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: "William A.(Andy) Adamson" <andros@citi.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [SPKM] Re: [67th IETF] SPKM3 BOF announcement
Message-ID: <20061012210617.GK12284@binky.Central.Sun.COM>
References: <20061011233801.GA12284@binky.Central.Sun.COM> <20061012141102.43895.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20061012193543.GI12284@binky.Central.Sun.COM> <20061012194819.D633D1BE1C@citi.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20061012194819.D633D1BE1C@citi.umich.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: spkm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: spkm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Low Infrastructure Public Key GSS mechanism <spkm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spkm>, <mailto:spkm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/spkm>
List-Post: <mailto:spkm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spkm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spkm>, <mailto:spkm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: spkm-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:48:19PM -0400, William A.(Andy) Adamson wrote:
> > I'd like to think that the individual submission path should be workable
> > for security area work.  In particular I think neither an SPKM-4/5 nor a
> > DTLS based GSS mechanism should require forming a WG.  And if there
> > isn't sufficient interest in fixing SPKM-3 to form a WG, then nothing
> > more can be done for it.
> > 
> > At this point we need to hear from the authors and from anyone with
> > experience with deployed implementations.  We need to hear about the
> > interop story.
> 
> At the September 2006 NFSv4 bakeathon here at CITI, the Hummingbird Windows 
> NFSv4 client mounted a Linux NFSv4 server using SPKM3 (not spkm3i nor spkm3p). 
> Two independent SPKM3 implementations. The full suite of connectathon tests 
> passed.

I assume these don't quite implement RFC2847, but something similar,
yes?  How faithful a description of that protocol is draft-adamson-
rfc2847-bis-01?  Has either implementation been deployed in production
environments?

Nico
-- 

_______________________________________________
SPKM mailing list
SPKM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spkm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email