Subject: LAST CALL COMMENT CLARIFICATIONS Abstract

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:10:38 -0400

>   This document is not intended to describe Kerberos to the end user,
>   system administrator, or application developer. Higher level papers
>   describing Version 5 of the Kerberos system [NT94] and documenting
>   version 4 [SNS88], are available elsewhere.

draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-05 says there should be no citations in
the Abstract that are not fully defined in the Abstract.

I don't think we really need that paragraph at all, but as a minimal
change, how about simply removing the citations:

>   This document is not intended to describe Kerberos to the end user,
>   system administrator, or application developer. Higher level papers
>   describing Version 5 of the Kerberos system and documenting
>   version 4, are available elsewhere.

and deleting the entry for [SNS88] in the References section, since it
now has no other references (though [NT94] does)...

Ken

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:31 -0400

Thinking about it.  That paragraph does seem a bit strange to have in an 
abstract.  The reference to Kerberos IV in a document entitled Kerberos 
V is certainly unnecessary.

If we do not want to remove the paragraph entirely how about we also 
remove the reference to Kerberos IV.

    This document in not intended to describe Kerberos to the end user,
    system administrator, or application developer.  Higher level papers
    describing the Kerberos V system are available elsewhere.

- Jeff