Subject: RE: Updating the GSSAPI-CFX draft: GSS Names in the Kerberos v5 mechanism

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:22:10 -0800

But can you provide counter arguments against the reasons I wanted this
update? Namely this draft is incomplete for using "newer" enctype, thus
it failed to do that it was supposed to do.

I do not exactly agree with the word "substantial" used by Jeff
(jaltman) and I do understand the process fairly well.

-- larry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:15 AM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: [email-masked]; Ken Raeburn; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Updating the GSSAPI-CFX draft: GSS Names in the Kerberos v5
mechanism

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:03:51AM -0800, Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote:
> Gladly, the current draft does not obsolete RFC1964. we will still 
> need RFC 1964 for "not-newer" enctypes.

In that case I think this is a non-issue.

If there was nothing to update w.r.t. naming then no text about naming
needs to be added to the cfx I-D as it stands.

Cheers,

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:27:48 -0600

> it failed to do that it was supposed to do.

I see no impact on naming, thus no need to update the I-D, which is
sitting on the RFC Editor's queue.

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:35:48 -0600

> (jaltman) and I do understand the process fairly well.

He didn't use that word, at least not on the list and in this thread.