Subject: Re: [kitten] WGLC on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts-11

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:13:20 -0400

>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Leif> OK lets see if I can summarize the proposals that have been
    Leif> floating around in this thread:

    Leif> 1 change the signature for set_attribute 2 add a new method
    Leif> set_attribute_critical 3 clarify the semantics of
    Leif> set_attribute to always require that the attribute be "known"

    Leif> My personal preference is 3,2,1 in that order. My gut feeling
    Leif> is that an implementation should not allow setting of
    Leif> attributes it doesn't have some "knowledge of" but maybe I
    Leif> just haven't thought about the ramifications enough.

    Leif> 	Cheers Leif
    Leif> _______________________________________________ Kitten mailing
    Leif> list [email-masked]
    Leif> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

Ok, so what happened with this?
It would be really good to get naming exts on its way.

---

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:52:01 -0600

On 10/20/11 08:13 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johansson<[email-masked]>  writes:

That was the chairs' to do item; determine if a consensus call needed to 
be made.  After looking through the thread this does seem to be case.  I 
will hopefully have something drafted this weekend.  Sorry for the delay.

Shawn.
--

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:42:13 +0200

On 05/27/2011 09:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Nico" == Nico Williams <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>     Nico> I would prefer that we cover this now.
> 
>     Nico> Here's my proposal: add an 'int critical' argument to
>     Nico> GSS_Set_name_attribute() to indicate whether it is critical
>     Nico> that the mechanism understand the given attribute wherever the
>     Nico> name is used as an input, and allow the mechanism to ignore
>     Nico> non-critical attributes that it doesn't understand.
> 
> I'm against changing the function signature of anything specified by C
> bindings in this document.  I'd support adding a new API in a future
> document (set_critical_attribute) if we need it.

I propose the chairs do a consensus call for introducing the following
change to resolve this issue after which I can issue -12 and we can do
another WGLC.

The proposed change is:

Add the following paragraph as the first paragraph of text (after the
specification text) in 7.6:

"An implementation SHOULD return GSS_S_UNAVAILABLE as indicated above
if the attribute and its semantic is not understood by implementation.
Allowing arbitrary attribute names to be set may alter the security
properties of the established context."

Also I propose changing all occurences of the term "attribute OID" to
"attribute name" This is a residue from an earlier version of this
draft when names were still OIDs. Arguably a minor nit.

	Cheers Leif