Subject: RE: draft-ietf-krb-wg-anon-02.txt

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 04:14:51 -0800

Ken Raeburn wrote:
>> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> BTW, on reflection, I think -naming needs to choose terminology  
>> other than "reserved".  A "reserved" realm name is one that is not  
>> domain-style, X.500, or "other"; overloading the terminology is  
>> going to cause confusion.

> Maybe "special" or something?

I changed this to "well-known".

--larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Raeburn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:24 PM
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Cc: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-krb-wg-anon-02.txt

On Feb 28, 2007, at 11:23, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> Aside from the heirarchical meaning of a null subfield, DOMAIN-X500- 
> COMPRESS appears to treat realm names as strings.  So, "FOO." at  
> the start of the transited path would mean "FOO.RESERVED:WHATEVER",  
> which is a "reserved" (illegal) realm name, since it contains both  
> a colon and a dot before the colon.

Yes, you're right.  It looks like it's described for any strings,  
it's just optimized for domain and X.500.  Since you wouldn't want to  
be describing invalid realm names, there are just some places where  
you couldn't apply the optimizations (and some encodings that  
wouldn't represent lists of valid realm names).  No need for a new  
encoding description.

> BTW, on reflection, I think -naming needs to choose terminology  
> other than "reserved".  A "reserved" realm name is one that is not  
> domain-style, X.500, or "other"; overloading the terminology is  
> going to cause confusion.

Maybe "special" or something?

Ken