Subject: CONSENSUS CALL - PKINIT checksum

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:12:53 -0500

This is ticket #674.

Last wek, Ken Raeburn and Sam Hartman made a proposal for handling 
checksums in PKINIT.  The gist of this is to drop use of Kerberos checksum 
types, and instead use a fixed SHA-1 hash now, and leave room to add 
negotation in the future if/when there is a need to negotiate another hash.

d Ken posted a message earlier this week describing specific edits to the 
document to implement this proposal, which I encourage everyone to read.n

This issue was discussed at the meeting this week in Washington, and the 
sense of the room was to accept Ken and Sam's proposal.

Now, we need to validate this decision on the mailing list.  To that end, I 
will accept comments on this proposal until Friday, November 19.  Hopefully 
by that point I will be able to make a determination on consensus.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:25:34 -0500

On Friday, November 12, 2004 12:12:53 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> checksums in PKINIT.  The gist of this is to drop use of Kerberos
> checksum types, and instead use a fixed SHA-1 hash now, and leave room to
> add negotation in the future if/when there is a need to negotiate another
> hash.
>
> Now, we need to validate this decision on the mailing list.  To that end,
> I will accept comments on this proposal until Friday, November 19.
> Hopefully by that point I will be able to make a determination on
> consensus.

This issue was discussed extensively at the meeting in Washington, and many 
of the most active participants were present during that discussion.  Both 
the key points of that discussion and the subsequent poll were reported in 
the minutes of that meeting.  In addition, the mailing list received a 
comment in support of this decision.  In such a situation, I believe that 
the resulting decision can be validated without having the discussion over 
again here, provided that, as in this case, there have been no objections.

Therefore, I am declaring that it is the consensus of the WG to accept Ken 
and Sam's proposal for handling checksums in PKINIT, as described in Ken 
Raeburn's message of November 10.  I have asked the draft editors to 
include Ken's changes in the next PKINIT draft.

-- Jeff