Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Are we still interested in ticket extensions

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:37:40 -0400

With my chair hat on:

One of the items on our charter is working on ticket extensions.  Ticket
extensions are a way to include unencrypted (but integrity protected)
information associated with a ticket.  The original motivation was
pkcross, which wants to give a service (typically the TGS) information
it needs to decrypt the ticket along with the ticket.

In 2008, Love put together a draft on how to do ticket extensions and we
adopted it.
That's kind of a long time ago.

Our AD asked us to confirm if we're still interested in this work and if
we still think it valuable.

I'd appreciate comments on any of the following:

* Are ticket extensions useful to standardize
* Expression of interest in reviewing/working on the document
* Expressions of interest in implementing
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:42:05 -0700

> * Expressions of interest in implementing

yes to all of them. I stopped working on the document when I felt that there was pushback to do the work, if there is support to standarize, I'll pick it up again.

Love