Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-gss-cb-hash-agility

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:57:23 -0400

Shawn  the GSS hash agility draft seems to be stuck on two issues.

1) Can you publish a version with the IANA change I proposed? There were
no objections.

2) We seem to be waiting a long time on the question of test vectors. I
think at this point we should ask ourselves whether test vectors are a
nice-to-have or a must-have. If they are nice-to-have we should not
block on them.

I'd appreciate comments on the second point.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:48:02 -0600

> 1) Can you publish a version with the IANA change I proposed? There were

I've made the IANA changes in my copy already, but didn't want to submit 
another revision until we settled on 2 below.

> nice-to-have or a must-have. If they are nice-to-have we should not

I haven't implemented cb-hash-agility in our release, so it wouldn't be 
something I could conjure up easily with my schedule.  If it is a 
must-have then it would be ideal to have at the least two 
implementations that can produce a test vector collision.

Shawn.
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:37:10 -0400

>>>>> "Shawn" == Shawn Emery <[email-masked]> writes:

    Shawn> On 10/18/11 08:57 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> 1) Can you publish a version with the IANA change I proposed?
    >> There were no objections.

    Shawn> I've made the IANA changes in my copy already, but didn't
    Shawn> want to submit another revision until we settled on 2 below.

IT would be nice to publish before IETF 82 at least, because
draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap would like to refer to your registry.

    >> 2) We seem to be waiting a long time on the question of test
    >> vectors. I think at this point we should ask ourselves whether
    >> test vectors are a nice-to-have or a must-have. If they are
    >> nice-to-have we should not block on them.

    Shawn> I haven't implemented cb-hash-agility in our release, so it
    Shawn> wouldn't be something I could conjure up easily with my
    Shawn> schedule.  If it is a must-have then it would be ideal to
    Shawn> have at the least two implementations that can produce a test
    Shawn> vector collision.

OK.
So, who wants to stand up and claim this is a must have?

The chairs will attempt to at least guilt trip you into giving us test
vectors if you do that. You can of course refuse.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:11:46 +0200

> So, who wants to stand up and claim this is a must have?

Given that we don't have test vectors for most of Kerberos or GSS-API
(which is a shame), I don't think it is fair to require test vectors for
a new specification in this area.

> vectors if you do that. You can of course refuse.

I have the spec implemented, but it was not immediately clear to me how
a useful test vector should look like.  If someone else produce test
vectors, I could try to double check them though.

/Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:20:49 -0400

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> writes:

    Stephen> Nothing huge here but a few things to check/figure out.

    Stephen> I've put this into AD evaluation:revised ID needed for now
    Stephen> since I guess a new rev will be needed.

Hi.  We'd like to ask you to take this one forward. I believe the IANA
issue has been dealt with, and no one is asking to block on test
vectors.
So, if your comments have been addressed I think we're ready for IETF
LC.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:36:49 +0100

On 10/23/2011 06:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell<[email-masked]>  writes:
>

Done. Mail should pop out tomorrow sometime,

S.