Subject: request for agenda items

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:57:15 -0400

During the Paris IETF63 I would like to spend the
majority of the time on a specific topic:

  reviewing the mailing list archives and identifying the
  specific sections of text we wish to use as a basis for
  satisfying this Working Group milestone:

  Jul 05	  	Submit either 'Clarifications to GSSAPIv2' as
  Informational OR submit 'Generic Security Service Application Program
  Interface Version 2, Update 2' and 'Generic Security Service API
  Version 2, Update 2 : C-bindings' to the IESG as Proposed Standard

Please provide a list of other topics to be discussed at this meeting.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Altman

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:03:26 -0400

I'd like to have a discussion on what it would take to move 2743/2744
to draft?  Would we have to respin the documents?

Will we be ready to have a presentation on Nico's proposal to
implement name attributes?

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:13:32 -0500

> to draft?  Would we have to respin the documents?

A discussion?  Sure, but we'll need more folks to sign up to do the
work.

> implement name attributes?

I intend to be.

Nico
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:15:37 -0400

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]> writes:

    Nicolas> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 06:03:26PM -0400, Sam Hartman
    Nicolas> wrote:
    >> I'd like to have a discussion on what it would take to move
    >> 2743/2744 to draft?  Would we have to respin the documents?

    Nicolas> A discussion?  Sure, but we'll need more folks to sign up
    Nicolas> to do the work.

Yes.  But I'd like to understand whether it requires a respin.  If the
answer is yes, we may want to hold off until v3.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:38:48 -0500

> answer is yes, we may want to hold off until v3.

There's no RFC2119 reference or language in the base specs, which I
assume would automatically block a move to Draft Standard without a
respin.

Nico
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:16:09 -0400

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]> writes:

    Nicolas> There's no RFC2119 reference or language in the base
    Nicolas> specs, which I assume would automatically block a move to
    Nicolas> Draft Standard without a respin.

Not to my knowledge.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:31:03 -0500

>     Nicolas> Draft Standard without a respin.

In that case sure.

BTW, how do you interop test APIs?  I mean, the GSS-API defines very
little in the way of bits on the wire.  Try to compile and run generic
GSS-API test applications?

We can test RFC1964/CFX, of course.

Nico
--

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:33:26 -0400

> GSS-API test applications?

Exactly.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:35:27 -0500

> > GSS-API test applications?

So we'll need to develop some, or use/extend GSSMONGER.

Nico
--

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:37:43 -0400

>     Nicolas> Draft Standard without a respin.

Mine either.  2119 is a nice source of terminology that everyone 
understands, or thinks they do, but it is entirely possible to specify a 
protocol (or, in this case, an API) without them.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:23:49 -0400

I actually suspect Martin may well already have sufficient data to
meet the interop requirements for draft standard.  I don't know if he
would be willing to share that data with us or whether his
confidentiality agreements would allow him to do so.