Subject: Re: Open Issues on draft-ietf-kitten-2478bis

From: Luke Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:09:04 +1100

>(3) At IETF61 there was a consensus call in the meeting room asking
>     whether the use of optimistic tokens will be specified in 2478bis
>     as a "SHOULD" or a "MAY".  There was no consensus in the room.
>     Is there consensus on the mailing list?

We would prefer SHOULD. Indeed, Heimdal right now requires the
optimistic token (and this is unlikely to be fixed until it gets
mechglue).

>P.S. - Happy Thanksgiving to all.

You too.

-- Luke

--

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:54:45 +0100 (MET)

> optimistic token (and this is unlikely to be fixed until it gets

I'm a little surprized?  Do you mean that your SPNEGO acceptor will
break if it receives an initial SPNEGO token without an optimistic
context token?

That this token was optional was quite obvious from the rfc2478 spec,
and that spec is so short that it is hard to misread or misinterpret
this part.

Now if implementors get that part of rfc2478 wrong, then I don't have
any hope that implementors get the current rfc2478bis right, because
it is a least a magnitude more complex.

-Martin