Subject: [Fwd: draft-ietf-kitten-extended-mech-inquiry-02.txt]

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:43:25 -0800

Subject: draft-ietf-kitten-extended-mech-inquiry-02.txt
From: David Leonard <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:43:25 +1000

Hi,

Comments regarding draft-ietf-kitten-extended-mech-inquiry-02.txt

There is a typo in 3.3 "GSS_C_MA_WRAP wap" ... probably should be "wrap"

Table 2's entry for GSS_C_MA_ITOK_FRAMED refers to rfc2743, not [RFC2743]

In s3.5.1 I do not understand how GSS_BAD_MECH_ATTR could ever be 
returned. I think it should be expected that a future caller could be 
searching for an attribute OID that the implementation doesn't know about.

s 3.5.3 does not mention language/locale/encoding with the short_desc 
and long_desc description output of GSS_Display_mech_attr(). Is that 
deliberate? Could I assume it will sensitive to the 'current' locale, 
and return UTF-8? I notice RFC2743 doesn't address this with the other 
GSS_Display calls, so maybe this is addressed more generally?

Also, in s3.5.3 would it be reasonable to allow the return of empty or 
null descriptions from GSS_Display_mech_attr()?

Thanks

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