Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarification-03

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hartman)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:35:51 -0500 (EST)

I have just finished a review of the complete Kerberos clarifications
specification with the exceptions noted in my earlier mail and with
the additional exceptions of the references section and appendices.  I
did review the end notes.

We have come a long way in the last years.  I'd like to thank Cliff
and the other participants.  While I still think that we could find
ways to improve the document, clarifications is significantly better
than RFC 1510.  I have much greater confidence that someone could
produce an interoperable implementation starting from our drafts than
starting from RFC 1510.

I did not find any technical obstacles to the publication of Kerberos
clarifications during my review.  I did come up with technical points
I would like to see corrected (you have already received mail on these
points), but even if these corrections are not applied, I believe the
protocol should be published.  I am concerned however that process
considerations will not allow the document to be published in its
current form. At a minimum, the references must be split into
normative and non-normative references.  I do not know if the IANA
considerations and security considerations sections will pass IESG
review.  I have not reviewed the ID nits or RFC editor instructions
recently and believe someone should do that review.  I think Ken
posted all or part of that review here a while ago, but do not
remember details.

I don't think the document needs another last call.  Instead I think
that Cliff and the other authors should keep the WG informed of any
small changes that are needed and the WG should object if participants
have a problem.

--Sam

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:01:35 -0500

[email-masked] (Sam Hartman) writes:
>   I have not reviewed the ID nits or RFC editor instructions

I posted a few points I noticed from having read the RFC editor
instructions some time before.  I have not checked to see that the
document meets all the criteria.  (Come to think of it, I haven't done
that check for the crypto or aes drafts either....)

Ken