Subject: Re: KRB-WG 54th IETF Meeting Minutes

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:24:58 -0400

"Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]> writes:

>    We will
>    likely hold an interim meeting between now and the Atlanta IETF to
>    resolve any remaining issues on clarifications and continue
>    progress on the Kerberos extensions document.  The date and venue of
>    such an interim meeting will be discussed and announced to the
>    working group mailing list.

So, what's going on with this?  I've heard nothing about it except
this announcement.

An update on the crypto draft:

I've been talking off and on with some people (mostly MIT and
Microsoft) about AES, and the possibility of using CBC mode with
ciphertext stealing for AES, what crypto draft changes might be
helpful, would it be compliant with NIST recommendations, etc.  Some
small changes to the proposed "simplified profile" in the crypto draft
will allow using CBC+CTS without having to define a complete new
profile.  I hope to get new drafts out soon.

The Microsoft folks and I have been thinking about AES for GSSAPI, but
we haven't talked much about it in a while (mostly my fault, busy with
other things), and I'm not even sure if we're both thinking along the
same lines.  I haven't had much chance to write up my ideas.

Ken

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:13:06 -0500

Cliff,
You proposed an meeting of the krb-wg before Atlanta (November 17-21) to edit the 
Clarifications. 

If we have a meeting, we should hold it such that we could edit Clarifications
and submit a draft, so it was available for Atlanta. This means the meeting must be
done by about November 1.

Some questions to the WG:

  o Do we need an interim meeting? (We only seem to get things done when pushed,
    a meeting would push the WG to get moving.) 

  o Should other WG business be discussed? Extensions? (I would like to keep the meeting
    focused on editing the Clarifications with discussions of extensions as required 
    for the Clarifications. This would also keep us focused with a smaller group, as 
    only those involved with Clarifications would need attend.) 

  o Who would attend? (I believe that Cliff, Sam, Ken and Tom need to be present.)
        
  o Where? ISI, or MIT are possibilities. (If at MIT 3 of the 4 above are already
    there. Cliff, is that a problem? We could even have it at ANL outside Chicago.) 

  o When and how long? Any good dates?  Some time in October, for two days?       

-- 

 Douglas E. Engert  <[email-masked]>
 Argonne National Laboratory
 9700 South Cass Avenue
 Argonne, Illinois  60439 
 (630) 252-5444

---

From: Clifford Neuman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:16:12 -0700 (PDT)

I think that we should hold another interim meeting.  MIT is OK with
me if more of the people are in/near that location.  I would think
sometime around mid to later September would be best, possibly early
October. I think two days is about right.

Cliff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:22:27 -0400

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas E Engert <[email-masked]> writes:

    Douglas>   o Should other WG business be discussed? Extensions? (I
    Douglas> would like to keep the meeting focused on editing the
    Douglas> Clarifications with discussions of extensions as required
    Douglas> for the Clarifications. This would also keep us focused
    Douglas> with a smaller group, as only those involved with
    Douglas> Clarifications would need attend.)

I am hard-pressed to find enough open issues with clarifications to
have this meeting; perhaps I just don't know.  If we need a meeting to
motivate ourselves, at least one other item should be on the agenda.
If you don't want extensions on the agenda, then please consider one
of the following:

* What we're doing about dictionary attacks and preauth

* PKCross in a non-extensions world

Thanks,

--Sam

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:27:06 -0400

>* What we're doing about dictionary attacks and preauth

Preauth (especially hardware-preauth, which I need to submit the draft
on) could consume a fair amount of time, if people think there should
be a interim meeting (I don't mind them, we tend to get stuff done during
them).

--Ken

---

From: Lawrence Greenfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:20:50 -0400

<[email-masked]>
User-Agent: SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory?=
 =?ISO-8859-4?Q?=F2mae?=) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

I note that a new Kerberos clarifications draft hasn't been sent since
the first one i February, which means it's about to expire (Aug 22).

Cliff, you posted on May 31st that you'd have a new draft out
"soon". It would be very nice t have a new draft out so we can comment
on it---especially for people who won't be at any interim meeting.

Larry

   Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:13:06 -0500
   From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>

   You proposed an meeting of the krb-wg before Atlanta (November
   17-21) to edit the Clarifications.

   If we have a meeting, we should hold it such that we could edit
   Clarifications and submit a draft, so it was available for
   Atlanta. This means the meeting must be done by about November 1.

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:49:24 -0500

So far the responses to having an interim meeting to edit the clarifications
has been some what neutral.  Cliff said yes, Sam did not think it was needed.
Jeff A. said yes. One other said not the week of Sept 16 but another one said the week 
of the 16, but not the 16. Ken R. and Tom Y. had not responded, but since it would 
most likely be at MIT I assume they would participate. 

Since the meeting was proposed for editing the Clarifications maybe we should
try and do some more via e-mail.

Cliff, 
You know where we stand, and you had said you would have another draft shortly
after the last meeting. When can we expect it? 

When it comes out, can we concentrate our effort on selected sessions which 
need work? You may have been doing this over private mail, but the WG has not
seen much activity. This will require you to point the WG at sections which 
need work and to respond quickly to comments or suggestions from the WG on 
those sections. 

Comments? 

--

---

From: Marshall Vale <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:26:46 -0400

Hi,

Just to make this part of the discussion settled, MIT would be happy 
to host an interim meeting during the allowed time frame. I'm sure we 
can make the necessary arrangements in the time needed.

Now we should get back to Sam's question about whether there's enough 
justification to hold the meeting.

Marshall

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:44:09 -0500

I talked to Cliff today, and it looks like the best day to hold an interim meeting
would be Oct 1, and 2 at MIT.  Cliff has promised to get a version of the 
clarifications out this week. 

The editing of the Clarifications would be the prime topic, with time to discuss
the Extensions and other WG business.  

Any comments? If not I will proceed with a note to the IESG asking that we be allowed
to hold the meeting. 

--