Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] IANA: where we stand

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 10:18:10 -0400

I made a number of consensus calls after the meeting.
Based on the discussion, I believe:

1) The IANA registration procedures we thought would be easy to agree to
are in fact easy to agree to:

Protocol version numbers, KDC options, ticket flags and transited realm
encoding types will require standards action.

Key usages will have a FCFS range, but will also have a standards action
range because it is desirable to use lower numbers for documented
protocols.

2) People seemed to believe it would be reasonable to discuss padata,
authz-data and ticket extensions as a group.

I think the next steps are for the chairs to figure out how to frame the
difficult IANA discussion so we can actually reach an informed
consensus. OUr consensus probably needs to be informed by IETF policy,
practices with other protocols, our own experience, and how various
registration policies effect what vendors do.

I will work with Larry and Jeff to figure out how we want to approach
this. 
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg