Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Call for agenda items for IETF72

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:03:20 -0400

This is a call for agenda items for our meeting at IETF 72.  Please send 
requests for time or items you'd like to discuss to the list or directly to 
Larry and myself.  I expect to have a first draft agenda by early next 
week, and a final agenda by Monday, July 14.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:02:54 +0200

> week, and a final agenda by Monday, July 14.

Hi.  Two requests for discussion:

1) I want to see krb5starttls published.  If people are interested in
   helping improving any perceived defects, that would be excellent, but
   if not, then I don't see why the document is deferred indefinitely.
   When the document was referred from individual publication to this
   WG, it was with the understanding that the WG would help improve the
   document and guide it through the publication paths in the IETF.  If
   the WG doesn't have time or energy for it, it would be better to let
   me publish it as an individual draft rather than to sit on it for
   years without reaching any conclusion.

2) Assign a pa-data type for draft-josefsson-kerberos5-i18n-00.  I
   believe I tried to contact the expert reviewer for IANA some time
   ago, but never received a reply.

I likely cannot attend the meeting even remotely, but I hope this can be
solved through e-mail.

/Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:23:33 -0400

I'd like to make progress on naming and annonymous so they can finish going to the IESG.

I'd like to have technical discussion on fast.

I agree with Simon that we need to resolve the starttls issue.

I don't know how to handle Simon's padata request; I don't think we
have assignment rules agreed for that; perhaps we should come up with some rules so we can apply them.

--Sam

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:22:59 -0400

> I'd like to make progress on naming and annonymous so they can finish

This sounds like an excellent use of meeting time.  These documents are 
both post-IETF-LC and are waiting for resolution of comments raised during 
IETF last call and IESG review.  I will try in the near future to prepare a 
list of outstanding issues on these documents for the working group.

> I'd like to have technical discussion on fast.

Will you have an updated document?

> I agree with Simon that we need to resolve the starttls issue.

Yes we do.  Particularly since Simon won't be able to attend the meeting, I 
would like to try to resolve this via the mailing list.  We've been sitting 
on this for some time, and my recollection is that the only outstanding 
issue is that we can't agree on its intended status.

It is not too uncommon for a working group or the IETF to sit on an 
Informational document which describes an alternative way of doing 
something for which the Standards Track document has not yet been 
published.  In this particular case, if we decided that STARTTLS will not 
be the standard solution to the problems it solves, it would be reasonable 
to hold it, provided that work is actually progressing on a standards-track 
solution.  This would be the case even if STARTTLS were not a working group 
document.

However, in this case, there has not been much progress on the other 
alternative in some time, and I do not believe we have consensus that 
STARTTLS will not be the standard solution.  I would like to see the former 
situation change, and soon.  I would also like to reach a consensus on the 
intended status of STARTTLS.

RFC4120 section 9 says:

>    Section 7 of this document specifies protocol constants and other
>    defined values required for the interoperability of multiple
>    implementations.  Until a subsequent RFC specifies otherwise, or the
>    Kerberos working group is shut down, allocations of additional
>    protocol constants and other defined values required for extensions
>    to the Kerberos protocol will be administered by the Kerberos working
>    group.  Following the recommendations outlined in [RFC2434], guidance
>    is provided to the IANA as follows:
> ...
>    Additional preauthentication data type values, as defined in section
>    7.5.2, will be assigned subject to review by the Kerberos working
>    group or other expert review.

There is no "IANA expert reviewer", as IANA does not currently control this 
space.  The decision as to whether to allocate a PA-DATA number is up to 
this working group.  I agree with Sam that it would be good to come up with 
a set of guidelines for determining when it is appropriate to assign a 
number in this space, and then apply those rules to this case.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:05:01 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> I'd like to have technical discussion on fast.

    Jeffrey> Will you have an updated document?

Absolutely.

I think that by end of IETf week we should even have something ready
to last call.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:07:54 -0400

>> I agree with Simon that we need to resolve the starttls issue.

    Jeffrey> Yes we do.  Particularly since Simon won't be able to
    Jeffrey> attend the meeting, I would like to try to resolve this
    Jeffrey> via the mailing list.  We've been sitting on this for
    Jeffrey> some time, and my recollection is that the only
    Jeffrey> outstanding issue is that we can't agree on its intended
    Jeffrey> status.

I'd appreciate it if one of the chairs would summarize the comments to
date to get this discussion started.  

I agree that the open issue is the status.  A lot of your text focuses
on whether we should hold it if the document is informational.  I
don't think anyone has proposed doing that.

I know I've said that I would prefre that the document be published as
informational if it is to be published today, but I don't think anyone
is interested in blocking the document.

--Sam

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:06:37 +0200

> week, and a final agenda by Monday, July 14.

I'd like 3 1/2 minutes to remind everyone to do a final review of the 
information model draft. There were some minor comments during 
the last meeting that I've tried to incorporate in the version just 
published:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-02

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:14:57 -0700

--On Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:06:37 AM +0200 Leif Johansson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> requests for time or items you'd like to discuss to the list or directly
>> to Larry and myself.  I expect to have a first draft agenda by early next

Great.  The WGLC on this document is already concluded, so if you believe 
you've addressed all of the last comments, I'll take a look, make sure I 
agree, and then write it up and ask Tim to take it to the IESG.

I'd appreciate anyone who commented on this document during last call 
taking a look and letting me know if their comments have been addressed.

-- Jeff

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:02:43 +0200

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 19:14:57 Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> >> to Larry and myself.  I expect to have a first draft agenda by early
> >> next week, and a final agenda by Monday, July 14.
> >

Yes I believe I have addressed the comments. Afaik this is ready to go to
the IESG.

	Cheers Leif