Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] preliminary review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-14.txt

From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Aug 2009 12:34:00 -0400

OK, that should be fine, then.  Let's leave it as is anf adjust the text only if there is pushback from the IESG.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, Aug 31, 2009 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] preliminary review of   draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-14.txt
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
CC: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>    Jeffrey> --On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:48:56 AM -0400 Sam
>    Jeffrey> Hartman
>    Jeffrey> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:
>    Jeffrey> The reference to draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals
>    Jeffrey> looks like it should be normative, as it is needed to
>    Jeffrey> understand and implement the specification of the
>    Jeffrey> kdc-follow-referrals option in section 6.5.2.
>    >> 
>    >> My intent from the current text and reading of WG discussion is
>    >> that we want to allocate the flag bit here, but normatively
>    >> describe the behavior in the referrals draft so as not to delay
>    >> this draft.
>    >> 
>    >> Is that consistent with what we're trying to do?  If so, do you
>    >> think text clarification is needed?
>
>    Jeffrey> I think that's a fine thing to want to do.  But if the
>    Jeffrey> reference isn't normative and referrals isn't done,
>    Jeffrey> doesn't the reference just go away on publication?  If
>    Jeffrey> that happens, the description won't make much sense.
>
>No.  It remains as a reference to a work in progress.
>
>If referrals didn't happen and we we were later cleaning up the FAST IANA registry, we might want to replace it with a reserved flag.
>
>The thing we need to do is make it clear that we are just allocating a flag here, so that the IESG doesn't hold a discuss claiming that we
>have normative text in this version of the spec.
>
>Another alternative is to remove entirely and move the IANA
>registration of the option bit over to referrals.  I'd prefer not to
>do that though.
>
>

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg