Subject: JGSS follow-up

From: "Jack Kabat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:41:24 -0800

Hello Everyone,

As a result of the recent discussions of JGSS bindings, Mayank and I are
planning to modify the Java GSS bindings in the following manner:

Addition of interfaces to the specification:
Our plan is to start with the addition of 3 interfaces, one for each of
GSSName, GSSCredential, and GSSContext. These should be sufficient to
encapsulate all the mechanism specific functionality.  The interface
specification will be added to the existing JGSS draft. Note that this is
independent of the SPI interfaces that the group discussed at the
Minneapolis meeting. The SPI interfaces may be pursued at a later time in a
separate document.

The interfaces will utilize some of the existing concrete classes such as
Oid, MessageProp, ChannelBindings, and GSSException. These 3 new interfaces
will be all that is required for users to switch between the various
mechanism implementations. Since only 3 new interfaces are being added, we
feel that a separate document is not necessary to address this.

A question that arises is, for an implementation to be conformant to the
specification, does it need to implement both concrete classes and
interfaces? I think the answer should be yes, it needs to implement both.
The concrete classes can be implemented using the interfaces, and will
provide an easier API which is a highly desirable goal of the bindings.
Having the interfaces will allow flexibility to the JGSS mechanism
developers.

Regards,

Jack

==========================================================================
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe ietf-cat-wg" to [email-masked]

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:19:12 -0800 (PST)

> Minneapolis meeting. The SPI interfaces may be pursued at a later time in a

Presumably these additions will include the factory class that Mayank
presented in Minneapolis.

> interfaces? I think the answer should be yes, it needs to implement both.

I agree.

	-mre