Subject: Charter Items

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:44:00 -0400 (EDT)

I'm in the process of preparing a final version of the rechartering
proposal.  My goal is to have this ready for review by the working group
early next week, but before I can do that, some questions need to be
resolved.  So, I'm asking for input from WG participants on the following
items:

(1) Should the charter include an item to investigate issues related to
    the cross-realm model and evaluate potential solutions?  The sense of
    the room in Prague was that it should, so I will include this item
    unless there are objections raised here.

(2) Should the charter include an item to develop a means of supporting
    one-time passwords in Kerberos?  Again, the sense of the room in
    Prague was "yes", so I'll include this item unless there are
    objections.

(3) Should the charter include an item to advance Kerberos and PKINIT to
    draft?  At the moment, I'm inclined to leave this item out unless
    one or more people step forward and volunteer to work on this.

(4) Should the charter include an item to work on IAKERB or another
    solution in that space?

(5) Should the charter include an item to work on a means of supporting
    hardware preauthentication in Kerberos?

-- Jeff

---

From: Clifford Neuman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:48:22 -0700

>     one or more people step forward and volunteer to work on this.
If not here, then where, although I do not fully understand the process 
and whether it is a working group item - i.e. are changes needed to do 
so, or is it just the activity of suggesting that it be progressed and 
ensuring that the requirements re independent implementations, etc, have 
been met.
>     hardware preauthentication in Kerberos?

I think so.

Cliff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:59:20 -0400 (EDT)

> ensuring that the requirements re independent implementations, etc, have

Well, advancing doesn't necessaruly have to be a WG item.  But basically,
one has to collect information on whether there are independent
interoperable features, and then in order to advance, the spec would have
to be updated to remove any features for which there are not, and _that_
should really be done by the WG.

So, if we want this to happen, it really should be a WG item, at least as
long as the WG actually exists.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:17:19 -0400

>     hardware preauthentication in Kerberos?

As an individual, my own answers are yes to all of these.

As a chair and author of the charter proposal, I will not include any item 
for which there is not an indication that someone is actually willing to 
work on it.  At the moment, that means that 1,2,4,5 are candidates but 3 is 
not.  The proposal I post later this week will reflect that, unless I hear 
someone willing to work on (3) or there is loud objection to one of the 
others.

-- Jeff