Subject: RE: Kerberos clarifications comments: section 7.5.1

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:13:00 -0700

The following comment was sent to Cliff offline, do you think it is
reasonable?

Lzhu wrote:
> ...

For for section 7.5.1

> change the following text from:
>  
>   22-25.        Reserved for use in GSSAPI mechanisms derived from RFC
>                 1964. (raeburn/MIT)
> to
>
>    22-25.       Reserved for use in the Kerberos Version 5 GSSAPI 
>                 mechanism [@GSSAPI-CFX].
>
> Then in section 13, add
>
>   [@GSSAPI-CFX]
>      RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for
draft-ietf-krb-wg-gssapi-cfx.
> ...

Larry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:02 PM
To: Simon Josefsson; Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Kerberos clarifications comments: section 7.5.1

On Thursday, July 08, 2004 00:37:24 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Rfcdiff output may help.  Below the "real" differences are marked in
> blue:
>
> http://josefsson.org/shishi/draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-
> 06-
> from-5.diff.html

Wow.  That is really useful.

I've read over the document, and I am satisfied that Simon's text has
been incorporated.  A couple of problems have crept in, but nothing too
hard to
fix:

In section 3.1, the first line after the summary table is missing.

The footnotes that were inlined in that section would probably be better
in parentheses.

Finally, we have the outstanding issue regarding XOR'ing a protocol key
with a random number, in section 3.3.1.  I'm inclined to agree with Sam
and Ken that the sentence under discussion should simply be deleted.

The first two items can definitely be fixed during the author's 48
hours.

The last item is not a substantive change in the protocol.  It drops
advice that was never correct in the first place.  Unless I hear an
objection from the working group in the next couple of days, I'm
inclined to assert that this item can also be handled during the
author's 48 hours.

Cliff, can you ACK that you will deal with these three items during the
authors 48 hours period?  I will keep them on my issues list to make
sure we don't lose track of them.

Assuming there are no other objections, on Friday evening I will send
mail to Russ indicating that clarifications-06 is ready for IESG
approval, and including a complete copy of my summary of the issues
raised by the IESG and our responses.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:14:39 -0400

> draft-ietf-krb-wg-gssapi-cfx.

Well, there once was a time when we thought this document would be approved 
before GSSAPI-CFX.  Since it's clear that's not going to happen, I think 
this change is entirely reasonable.