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

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at columbia.edu> writes:

    Jeffrey> 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

    Jeffrey> IETF Standards Track documents are developed within the
    Jeffrey> IETF and IETF processes.  

True.

    Jeffrey> By working with IETF to develop
    Jeffrey> a standards track specification for JGSS, Sun has given
    Jeffrey> up the right to utilize the JCP.

I don't think that follows at all.  I think that if Sun chooses to
continue working within the IETF to standardize Java GSS bindings then
Sun should plan to implement the results of IETF standards.

If that isn't going to work for Sun, then perhaps it is inappropriate
for this working group to standardize Java bindings for GSS
extensions.  Instead, we can standardize the abstract APIs.  Sun can
go through whatever process they choose to define Java bindings.  I'd
recommend that if Sun chooses that route they publish informational
RFCs notifying the IETF community what Java extensions they
standardize.


My hope is that Sun will find a way of working within the IETF process
to standardize Java GSS extensions.  However we need Sun's input on
this issue rather soon in order to know what to do with the current
draft.

Sam Hartman
Security Area Director


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