Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] Does draft-yount-krb-cred-clear-text-01.txt conflict with the work of the Kerberos Working Group

From: Thomas Hardjono <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:11:39 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-krb-wg-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:24 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Does draft-yount-krb-cred-clear-text-01.txt
> conflict with the work of the Kerberos Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> Hi.
> I've agreed to help Russel put together a publication request for this
> draft.
> One of the questions the ADs will eventually have for the chairs of
> krb-wg is whether this draft conflicts with the work of the Kerberos
> working group.
> 
> Several people have indicated support for the draft.  Does anyone
> believe that this draft needs to be handled as a work item of the
> Kerberos WG, or would people be happy with it going forward as an
> individual standards track document.

I support this work by Russ and JHutz.  It would be nice if this was a WG work-item, but for faster action it may be better for it to be an individual submission. (The Kerberos WG still has to undergo a Charter Update, which may take some time to complete).

PS.   I'm biased here, since this draft is directly related to the work being done in the OASIS SAML/Security-Services TC by Josh Howlett (on a SAML2.0 Kerberos Web Browser SSO profile).  Russ' draft touches specifically the SAML2.0 Kerberos Attribute Profile.

/thomas/

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

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:34:20 -0500

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 16:11 -0500, Thomas Hardjono wrote:

> PS.   I'm biased here, since this draft is directly related to the work
>  being done in the OASIS SAML/Security-Services TC by Josh Howlett (on
>  a SAML2.0 Kerberos Web Browser SSO profile).  Russ' draft touches
>  specifically the SAML2.0 Kerberos Attribute Profile.

I'm biased too, since I've been fairly heavily involved in the process
that led to this draft and to some recent modifications to the SSTC
documents Thomas mentions.  For that reason, I don't think I can
shepherd this document.  However, I do think it's fairly straightforward
and noncontroversial, in which case moving forward with an individual
submission would be fine.

In the name of truth in advertising, I should note that I normally
encourage people to do work like this within the appropriate WG whenever
possible, because I feel that using the WG process generally leads to
better documents with fewer late surprises.  So, maybe my bias with
respect to this particular document is showing a bit.  For that reason,
I'll leave it up to the SEC AD's (and Larry, if he wants to object on
behalf of the WG) to determine whether to allow it to proceed this way.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:54:44 -0500

OK.  So, I've heard a couple people with a preference for doing it in
the WG.  No one really has objected to it going forward outside the WG,
but given how close to the line it is, I feel uncomfortable trying to
push this forward outside the WG process given the input received. That
is, based on the input, I'd rather see the WG decide whether it wants to
adopt the draft before I try and shepherd as an individual submission.

So, for the moment, I guess that leaves things in Jeff and Larry's court
with Jeff recused.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Larry Zhu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:42:11 +0000

I tend to agree that this draft does not conflict with the existing WG charter and it is simple enough that it should proceed along a path that is easiest within the IETF process. I agree that the faster path is an individual submission in this specific case. 

So also taking into account what Jeff already expressed earlier, please go ahead. I do encourage future discussions to happen in the working group mailing list in all cases. Folks who support the work in the WG should start to send in their comments if any, and that way the draft moves long while getting quality reviews from this WG.
Thanks,
--Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] Does draft-yount-krb-cred-clear-text-01.txt conflict with the work of the Kerberos Working Group

OK.  So, I've heard a couple people with a preference for doing it in the WG.  No one really has objected to it going forward outside the WG, but given how close to the line it is, I feel uncomfortable trying to push this forward outside the WG process given the input received. That is, based on the input, I'd rather see the WG decide whether it wants to adopt the draft before I try and shepherd as an individual submission.

So, for the moment, I guess that leaves things in Jeff and Larry's court with Jeff recused.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg