IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model

Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Mon, 04 June 2012 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6887F21F87E3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqFpKP1OWfOl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC5E21F87D3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=ZzNvD+xQZjV6CLx4ySHu8i+lDajy9VTYsQ0QpgPFinTZmfM5EM7ulAoF6laW/fe0LwOPPfoRwGzCRKEtnfPEFDgkFItB17x2/A/edavPSejP9Hlrhtz26bkqkoYYXF5P; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
Received: (qmail 6119 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2012 16:41:59 +0200
Received: from 94-194-102-93.zone8.bethere.co.uk (HELO ?192.168.1.69?) (94.194.102.93) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Jun 2012 16:41:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4FCCC936.3030600@gondrom.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:41:58 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:42:09 -0000

Hello all,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see  
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-12
Title:  An information model for Kerberos version 5
Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom
Review Date: June-4 2012

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication.

One basic question:
This draft aims for Standards Track, yet as far as I understood, it is 
not required that the used field names are in fact the same across 
different implementations but only that name-mappings exist. The ID also 
uses a modified RFC2119 language definition to allow that.
I would like to ask, whether possibly Informational Status would be more 
appropriate for this draft?


Minor issues:
- RFC2119 language in
4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3
s/MUST not/MUST NOT

- 4.4.2 sub-sections for policy:
in several sub-sections: IANA: still need to set the values and spaces 
for the OIDs
is marked for IANA in IANA considerations section 7, but why have the 
specific values not been put in the ID?

- section 5.1 and 5.2 and section 6
reference to expired ID: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-set-passwd
Am not so happy that the draft refers to drafts (which is expired in 
2009) for set/change password protocol. I lack the knowledge of the 
context of why the WG chose to expire this ID at the time and why it is 
now used as a reference here. Is there another resource you could refer 
to instead? Do you want to revive the set-passwd ID?
Especially as the reference is part of a mandatory part ("SHALL only") 
of the security considerations 6, I am having a hard time to see this as 
only "informational" and how to refer here to an expired draft....

Best regards, Tobias

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email