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 09:03:51 -0800

Gladly, the current draft does not obsolete RFC1964. we will still need
RFC 1964 for "not-newer" enctypes.

-- larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:50 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

Can this be addressed by making the new RFC update, rather than obsolete
rfc1964?

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:15:12 -0600

> 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: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:27:03 -0500

Nico:

I believe the issue at hand is whether or not someone that is trying to
implement this draft is going to do the leg work to find the necessary
but outdated text in RFC 1964 and realize it applies to this draft.

There are two solutions to this problem:

(1) copy/paste the text with the necessary context corrections

(2) add text referring users to the appropriate section of 1964
     along with comments as to the contextual changes

Choosing (1) is definitely the right thing to do in my mind.  The 
question for me is simply one of process.  I do not believe it is
desirable for this working group to pull documents out of the RFC
Editors queue and I do not think this change is small enough that
it can be done via an author's 48 hours change.  The process decision
should be determined by the Chair and the Area Director not by this
group.

Jeffrey Altman

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:34:29 -0600

> but outdated text in RFC 1964 and realize it applies to this draft.

There are many cases, w.r.t. IETF RFCs, where one must do this "legwork"
already.  What's one more?  Besides, I would hope that implementors do
their homework.  New implementors, trying to implement a the CFX mech
from the new RFC *will* notice that there's not enough information in it
to implement the mechanism and will probably do their homework rather
than guess.

As long as the new RFC updates, rather than obsoletes, rf1964 I see no
need to cut-n-paste from rfc1964.

> should be determined by the Chair and the Area Director not by this

I say (2) or (3) (do nothing).  And I agree that this should be decided
by the AD and the WG chair (but I would also hope that such cut-n-
pasting would raise eyebrows at the IESG).

Nico
--

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:31:28 -0500

On Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:27:03 -0500 Jeffrey Altman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The process decision should be
> determined by the Chair and the Area Director not by this group.

It should and it will be -- if there is agreement within the working group
that the change is desirable.  And, input from WG participants will be 
considered in making that decision.

wrt terminology...

It can be argued that the change is "substantial" because the amount of 
text involved is large.

I have reviewed the text in question as compared to the corresponding 
section in RFC1964, and I do not believe the change is "substantive"; that 
is, it does not change the meaning of the document.  Of course, others are 
invited to do the same comparison.

You have to love the English language.
Well, you don't have to, but it will help your sanity. :-)

-- Jeff