Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] IETF74 krb-wg minutes

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:35:01 +0200

Larry, Jeff, any response to this?  I'd like to understand your thinking
on krb5starttls.  It appears to be stalled (again).  I believe putting
unpublished proposals into the official meeting minutes, which doesn't
reflect what was said at the meetings, deserves some clarification.

Thanks,
/Simon

Larry Zhu <[email-masked]> writes:

> I will look into this.
>
> Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:34 AM
> To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] IETF74 krb-wg minutes
>
>
> Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> --On Friday, April 24, 2009 01:43:32 PM -0700 Larry Zhu
>>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That part of the minutes was taken verbatim from Jeff's note. I will
>>>> double check the notes and Shawn's scribe and post an update as
>>>> necessary. Thanks,
>>>
>>> My notes were intended as notes to myself on points that might require
>>> some followup by me, and while many of the items in those notes
>>> correspond directly to things that happened in the meeting, not all
>>> do.
>>>
>>> The item in question refers to a proposal I intended to make on this
>>> list, which I haven't yet had time to do and which was not discussed
>>> in the meeting.  The core of that proposal was to take the starttls
>>> document as it stood at the time of the meeting, modulo the outcome of
>>> the certificate validation discussion which was still going on at that
>>> point.
>>
>> Any update on this?
>>
>> It would be useful to clarify if you believe there has been some change
>> in the IETF 73 suggestion to move both krb5starttls and FAST forward as
>> experimental.
>
> Chairs, I would appreciate your reply on this.
>
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:52:04 -0400

> reflect what was said at the meetings, deserves some clarification.

I'm pretty sure I already clarified:

I made a note to myself, in my private notes, to propose something.  Larry 
used those notes as one source of input when preparing the meeting minutes, 
and my private note somehow got transformed into a report of a discussion 
that never happened, and that made it into the draft minutes.  How it is 
that this was not caught and corrected, I do not know, but I think it's 
been beaten to death.

The discussion never happened, period.
My proposal to the list also never happened.
I don't even remember what it was going to be, but I think it was going to 
be something along the lines of publishing starttls more or less as-is, 
modulo an answer to the question of how and how much certificate validation 
is required, and adopting your followon document whose name escapes me at 
the moment.  I don't recall what I was going to say about intended status; 
quite possibly I was going to avoid forming an opinion on that subject and 
hope that just maybe we could reach some kind of consensus.

Unfortunately, I've been exceptionally busy since March; we just finished a 
major project after burning through several weeks of slack, and we're 
moving four departments into a new building in August.  That means I've had 
very little time to deal with any IETF issue that takes longer to process 
than the few minutes I spent composing this message.  It also means I don't 
have time to be in Stockholm this week (which is sad, because I'm way 
overdue for a visit).

-- Jeff

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:17:39 -0700

I am in favor of publishing krb5starttls soon.  I don't really care if  
it's standards, experimental, informational or we'll-decide-later.   
The objections I've seen seem like minor clarifications and I'm  
uncomfortable with the way they seem to have stalled the whole  
process.  I thought that was the consensus at several of the recent  
IETF meetings, though I wasn't present.

In some ways I like FAST better, but I don't see that as relevant.

>> Chairs, I would appreciate your reply on this.

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]