Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] kerberos ticket extentions

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:50:03 -0500

--On Monday, September 29, 2008 09:28:24 AM +0200 Love Hörnquist Åstrand 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> 7 sep 2008 kl. 20.12 skrev Love Hörnquist Åstrand:
>
>> Since I'm already in a dream, I added the pretty version already
>> today.
>>
>> Will submit -02 when I get your feedback.
>
> Never got any feedback, so I submitted -02, please review.

I will review this, but haven't done so yet.  I would encourage others to 
do the same, particularly with an eye toward the question of whether we 
should adopt this as a working group item.

Among other things, we are chartered to...

	Prepare and advance a specification for an updated, backward-
	compatible version of the Kerberos version 5 protocol which
	supports non-ASCII principal and realm names, salt strings, and
	passwords; insures that those portions of the protocol which are
	not encrypted are nonetheless authenticated whenever possible; and
	enables future protocol revisions and extensions.

Love's document seems to be designed to "enable future protocol revisions 
and extensions", specifically in the form of ticket extensions, and so I 
think it falls within the scope of this item.  Ticket extensions are a 
problem we've worked on before, and this approach has been presented in a 
previous meeting.

Before adopting this item, Larry and I would like to hear from the working 
group on whether ticket extensions are still a form of extensibility we 
want to have, and on whether the approach used in this document is one we 
want to take.

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

---

From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:36:44 -0800

> want to have, and on whether the approach used in this document is  

This is the same way that kerberos extentions solve this, but makes it  
possible by scoping the problem so it can happen this year.

I would like to see this on the agenda and adopted and completed this  
year.

There should be no controversal stuff in here, and it is, I'll propose  
to just remove it.

Love