Re: Java Bindings do not need to be removed was Re: Proposed PRF changes to address Ken's comments

[Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at columbia.edu>]

Seema Malkani wrote:
> Hello... back from JavaOne.
> 
> I would like to clarify few things here:
> 
> 1) JCP Process
>   When RFC 2853 was published, we went through Sun's JCP process for the
>   Java GSS bindings before providing an implementation in the JDK.
>   Any updates to the Java GSS Bindings would also need to go though
>   the JCP process. Here is the JSR on the Java GSS bindings:
>   http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=72

IETF Standards Track documents are developed within the IETF and IETF
processes.  By working with IETF to develop a standards track
specification for JGSS, Sun has given up the right to utilize the JCP.


> 2) Other GSS extensions
>   Address all the other GSS extensions before submitting any updates to the
>   Java GSS API. In addition ensure any update made to Java GSS API does not
>   break backward compatibility.
> 
> As for the PRF extension, we can consider extending the GSSContext
> Interface and add PRF to the new interface. For e.g.
>   public interface GSSContextExt extends GSSContext {
>         public byte[] prf(...);
>   }
> 
> I would prefer to address all the GSS extensions for Java GSS bindings
> in a separate draft.

As I stated in my e-mail, this document does not specify the inclusion
of the prf() method in any standard "interface".  It would be
inappropriate to include prf() in "GSSContextExt" because we would then
have "GSSContextExtExt" when the next new method is defined.
Implementors are free to implement prf() as part of their implementation
specific classes that also implement the GSSContext interface.  A new
interface should not be published until the GSSv3 spec is complete.

Jeffrey Altman

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten