Subject: RE: Towards Java binding disposition [Was: RE: Next steps for CAT ]

From: Joe Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:50:06 -0700

I vote against trying to progress both documents at the same time.  I think
it is important to have separation between the JGSSAPI document and any SPI
document.  This is because first and foremost the API must be defined.  The
SPI layer is an implementation detail that it does not need to (and probably
should not) be mandated at this point.  It is possible to implement JGSSAPI
provider without any SPI at all.  It is prudent to consider the possible
snafus involved with creating an SPI layer, but getting bogged down in one
particular implementation will cause delays and may adversely affect the
genericness of the API. 

I suggest discussing the SPI related issues that either make an SPI layer
impossible or extremely unpleasant to implement on this list.  I've been
away from this for a while, so if someone could post these issues that would
help (Michael, I think you had a list of issues).  If any outstanding issues
are catastrophic to SPI development then they should be discussed and
resolved.

-Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: Linn, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:54 AM
To: 'CAT-WG List'
Subject: Towards Java binding disposition [Was: RE: Next steps for CAT]

So far on this thread, I've seen one message advocating decoupling JGSS from
SPI and progressing the high-level JGSS document independent of SPI
discussion, and another message suggesting that SPI topics be discussed at
the DC meeting as possible input to revising JGSS and SPI in the hopes that
successor versions can progress in parallel following the meeting.  Absent
further comments, it's hard to assess a clear consensus of where the group
stands.  More discussion, anyone?

--jl

==========================================================================
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: Mayank Upadhyay <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:33:13 -0700 (PDT)

I agree with the opinion expressed by Joe and Jack on this.

Jack and I will probably send out the new version of the API tomorrow. 
We've also kept Michael up-to-date on the changes and haven't come 
across any stumbling blocks that might cause changes in the API to 
accomodate the SPI.

-Mayank

>From: Joe Salowey <[email-masked]>
>To: "'CAT-WG List'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: Towards Java binding disposition [Was: RE: Next steps 
for CAT ]
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
<[email-masked]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0