Subject: Re: Next steps for CAT

From: Michael Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 11:54:13 -0400

At 10:16 AM 10/7/99 -0400, "Linn, John" <[email-masked]> wrote:
[....]
>It was proposed at the Oslo meeting that discussion of
>SPI requirements be undertaken before advancement of gssv2-javabind, but
>this discussion has not yet proceeded on the list.  Question: should
>progress of gssv2-javabind remain serialized on pending SPI discussion, or
>should it proceed towards WG Last-Call in the absence of such discussion?

There's been some off-list back-and-forth about these issues. Since 
unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to Oslo, I have only a secondhand 
sense of what was said there. For what it's worth, I didn't get the 
impression that very many people were concerned about the niceties 
of the interaction between bindings and SPI (though I of course 
care passionately about every fourth-order optimization). 

What I intend to do, provisionally, is revise the SPI document
to bring it in line with the forthcoming bindings document. I will 
come prepared (if anyone is still interested) to discuss some areas
where the bindings might perhaps change a bit and make the SPI 
stuff a bit cleaner. Some of these topics were aired on he list 
before Oslo; unfortunately, not having been present, I don't 
have any first-hand sense of how much discussion they received 
there. I certainly don't want to re-open matters that the WG has 
already disposed of. 

In any case, it's my hope that one way or the other we will be 
able (if we choose) to progress both documents in tandem after 
DC. I don't think there are any open issues so unclear (at the 
SPI level) that we can't dispose of them in DC, and there'll
certainly then be nothing to hold up the bindings spec. 

--Michael Smith
  [email-masked]

==========================================================================
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: Jonathan Trostle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:08:15 -0700

Regarding kerb-set-passwd-00.txt, there is another implementation underway
outside of Cisco and Microsoft.

It seems the limited discussion criteria would apply to a lot of the drafts
in the CAT WG.

Jonathan

At 10:16 AM 10/7/99 -0400, Linn, John wrote:
>CAT fanciers:
>
>I've not yet heard from the IETF Secretariat about scheduling of a CAT
>session for the Washington, DC IETF (8-12 November), but will update the
>list as further information is available.  The WG mailing list has been very
>quiet since the Oslo meeting, and I hope that we can achieve closure on as
>many items as possible before the conclusion of the DC meeting. Based on
>currently reported plans for draft revisions, and comparing against the WG
>milestones list at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/cat-charter.html, my
>current understandings (and embedded questions) regarding potential
>standards-track actions are as follows:
>
>(1) We've decided not to pursue standards-track advancement for
>authorization documents, though these may become candidates for Experimental
>RFC publication.
>
>(2) The apparent sense of the group regarding low-infrastructure mechanism
>definitions is to pursue standards-track advancement of LIPKEY.  A revision
>to draft-ietf-cat-lipkey-01 is needed, per discussion noted in Oslo minutes.
>Question: will this upcoming revision be sufficient and suitable for WG
>Last-Call? 
>
>(3) The GSS Java bindings specification, gssv2-javabind-02, is to be revised
>within the I-D submission window which closes on 22 October, and discussion
>is intended for the DC meeting.  Advancement of this document is a
>recognized priority. It was proposed at the Oslo meeting that discussion of
>(4) Per discussion at Oslo, revisions are pending to both pk-init and
>kerberos-revisions; given that these documents are related, it was
>considered appropriate for a concurrent WG Last-Call to be undertaken once
>suitable versions of both documents are available. 
>
>(5) Two other Kerberos-related drafts, kerberos-extra-tgt-02 and
>kerberos-set-passwd-00, have been posted since the Oslo meeting but have
>received limited discussion on the mailing list.  Question: Does
>constituency and consensus exist for progressing the contents of these
>documents on the standards track and, if so, how should this be pursued
>relative to the ongoing development of kerberos-revisions?
>
>(6) An SPKM-related draft, ecdh-spkm-00, has been posted since the Oslo
>meeting but has not yet been discussed on the mailing list.  Question: does
>constituency and consensus exist for progressing this document on the
>standards track?
>
>--jl

---

From: "Linn, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:44:17 -0400

> It seems the limited discussion criteria would apply to a lot 

Quite true, both within CAT and elsewhere.  The overall IETF-level criteria
for standards track advancement require not only consensus acceptance of the
content of a document, but also demonstrated constituency of interest in the
document.  Until and unless members of a WG engage in discussion of a
document, it is difficult to validate either consensus or constituency.  

--jl