Subject: [kitten] WGLC on draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-06

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:12:16 -0400 (EDT)

This message begins the second Working Group Last Call (WGLC) of "Public
Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT) Freshness
Extension". A previous WGLC was held for version 01 of this document.
Review during that first WGLC raised some issues that required changes to
the content of the document, so another WGLC is needed. The WGLC will last
two weeks, ending on Friday, April 28th.  The draft is available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-06

A diff of the changes since the previous WGLC is available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-06.txt&url1=draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-01.txt

Please review the document and send comments to the Working Group mailing
list [email-masked] or the co-chairs [email-masked] before the
end of the WGLC.  Any and all comments on the document are sought in order
to access the strength of consensus.  Even if you have read and commented
on this or earlier versions of the draft, please feel free to comment
again.  This is particularly important if you found issues with the
previous version.

As a reminder, comments can be anything from "this looks fine" to "this is
a horrible idea"; they can include suggestions for minor editorial
corrections to significant editorial changes.

- Your Kitten Chairs

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:42:22 -0400 (EDT)

> two weeks, ending on Friday, April 28th.  The draft is available at:

Sorry for the typo; that should be Friday, April 29th.

-Ben

---

From: Greg Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:58:34 -0400

On 04/14/2016 11:12 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Extension".

I re-read this draft and found only minor editorial issues:

* In section 2, step 1 should say "Section 2.9.3 of [RFC4120]" as in the
other references; currently it is missing "of".

* Section 2.3 should make a forward reference to section 4.

* In section 8 paragraph 1, "KDC provided" should be "KDC-provided".

* In section 8 paragraph 2, there should be a comma between "KDCs" and
"depending."  I would also remove the quotes around "freshness".

* In section 8 paragraph 3, the construction "allowing both X as well as
Y" is not grammatical.  It should either be "allowing both X and Y" or
"allowing X as well as Y".  Also, there should be a "the" before
"existing risks".

* Numeric Google search results suggest "implementor" over
"implementer," but I don't know what the RFC editor's preference is.
"implementer" is used twice in the draft.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:53:38 -0400 (EDT)

Reminder: this WGLC ends soon -- please read the document and send
comments!

-Ben

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:49:24 -0400

I've read the current and several previous revisions of this document.
The current revision seems reasonable to me, and I can find no obvious
substantive issues.  I agree with Greg's suggested changes for the minor
editorial issues.

-Tom