Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Agenda Krb-WG Session ietf 83

From: Hasnaa Moustafa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:57:43 +0100

Hi,

I would like to know if there is a decision on having a Krb-WG session this
time at the ietf.

If there would be a session, I would like to know the possibility of having
a slot for presenting the draft

(Authentication in Wireless Mesh Networks Through Kerberos Tickets
<draft-moustafa-krb-wg-mesh-nw-02>”).

The -00 version of the draft was presented in the ietf of Beijing where we
got some useful feedbacks that allowed the update of this draft. But since
then there was not an opportunity to present it again in the Krb WG
session. So, I am to get more feedbacks on this draft after the updates
that have been done.

Kind regards,

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:04 -0500

>>>>> "Hasnaa" == Hasnaa Moustafa <[email-masked]> writes:

    Hasnaa> Hi, I would like to know if there is a decision on having a
    Hasnaa> Krb-WG session this time at the ietf.

We will be having a two-hour joint session with kitten.

    Hasnaa> If there would be a session, I would like to know the
    Hasnaa> possibility of having a slot for presenting the draft

    Hasnaa> (Authentication in Wireless Mesh Networks Through Kerberos
    Hasnaa> Tickets <draft-moustafa-krb-wg-mesh-nw-02> ).

We've not seen a lot of interest in this draft from parties other than
the authors.  I think we'd need to see significant interest from other
parties before presenting this draft again would make sense.

I'd like to hear comments from other WG participants who would like to
spend time on this topic.

Sam hartman
Kerberos co-chair

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:53:35 +0100

> spend time on this topic.

I'm somewhat confused after browsing the document.  It is targeted as an
informational document, it contains a problem statement, and then a
"solution proposal extending the Kerberos authentication model".

a) Are there any changes required for any Kerberos implementer to
support this document?

b) Is the "solution proposal" more than just a proposal, i.e., is it
something that can be implemented at all?

If the answer to a) and b) is yes, I believe it would be useful to
review the document in this WG.

The document appears to allocate a new KDCOptions flag.  I cannot find
any registration policy for the KDCOption namespace in RFC 4120.  If
this document moves forward, I think that problem needs to be resolved
first.

/Simon

---

From: Hasnaa Moustafa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0100

Hi Simon and Sam,

Thanks for this first feedback.

Coming to the questions of Simon: for question (a) I think that you
need a reply from Kerberos implementors. For question (b) I can tell
you that we implemented the proposed approach using the Kerberos open
source and we tested the implementation in a wireless mesh networks.

Hope that we can have further discussion from the WG in order to
decide on the possibility of presenting this draft.

Kind regards,
Hassnaa