Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] COMMENT: <draft-ietf-krb-wg-naming-07.txt>

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:19:48 -0400

--On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 07:00:47 AM -0700 Sean Turner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Comment:
> 1) Sec 1: It's odd that there's a 2119 requirement in the intro (before
> the requirements terminology).  Could this be reworked?

In fact, the "MUST" can simply be deleted; this text is descriptive of 
another specification and so is not actually normative here.

> 2) Sec 1: r/is to remedy/remedies

We'll get that fixed.

> 3) Sec 1: It would be nice to have some text that indicates say which
> parts of 4120 you're updating.  Section 6.1, 6.2, 7.5.7, and 7.5.8 right?

Well, we're certainly updating section 6.  Section 7 is essentially the 
initial contents of a registry (still not maintained by IANA, but we're 
working on that), so we're effectively adding to the registry.  But this 
document also does other things, like requiring that compliant 
implementations reject some requests which previously could have been 
permitted.  I'm not sure that being more precise is a good idea, but we can 
certainly discuss it.

> Side note: Interesting that in 4120 Section 6.2 uses NT-TYPENAME while
> 7.5.8 uses the prefix KRB and underscores instead of dashes
> (KRB_NT_TYPENAME).  Should KRB_NT_WELLKNOWN also be NT-WELLKNOWN?

> 4) Sec 3.1, 2nd para, 2nd sentence: r/must/MUST

This will be fixed as well.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:04:43 -0400

> Well, we're certainly updating section 6.  Section 7 is essentially the initial contents of a registry (still not maintained by IANA, but we're working on that), so we're effectively adding to the registry.  But this document also does other things, like requiring that compliant implementations reject some requests which previously could have been permitted.  I'm not sure that being more precise is a good idea, but we can certainly discuss it.

If it's easy to do great. If not skip it.

Spt

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:27:39 -0400

--On Friday, October 08, 2010 12:04:43 PM -0400 Sean Turner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> permitted.  I'm not sure that being more precise is a good idea, but we
>> can certainly discuss it.
>

Unfortunately, I don't think it is.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg