Re: [Fwd: [security-area] GSS Extensions document needs comments]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:39:18PM -0600, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas E Engert <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > >     Douglas> The Global Grid Forum is proceeding with their GSS
> > >     Douglas> extensions document. If anyone would like to comment on
> > >     Douglas> it.
> > >
> > > Doug, I think a number of us have indicated in the past that we
> > > fundamentally disagree with the approach the GGF is taking.  We've
> > > explained why we believe that is true.  Those comments are still as
> > > valid as they were when this first came up years ago.  If you are
> > > looking for comments to make, summarize those discussions and point
> > > out that a significant number of people involved in GSSAPI development
> > > believe this is the wrong approach.
> >
> > I am stuck in the middle of all this. Your comments need to go the the GGF,
> > not me. I have been trying to bring these two groups together, but
> > it has been frustrating, even with some individuals involved with both
> > organizations.
> 
> Doug, I agree with Sam.  Though the GSS-API is an IETF spec nothing
> stops anyone from adding private extensions.
> 
> This said, because of namespace issues I think the GGF should re-publish
> their extensions spec as an information RFC at the IETF so as to at
> least prevent future collisions.

I did that once. We will see if the GGF is interested in doing that again. 

> 
> I'd much prefer it if the GGF cam here and actually had a discussion
> with us.  I'm very interested in GSS-API extensions and have published
> one I-D on one such extension and have several on the wings.  I'd rather
> we all design any such extensions correctly than not.
> 

Now that we are talking about a KITTEN BOF, this is much more likely.
Prior to this the CAT group has actually ended and there was really no
where to go in the IETF.  So hopefuly some of the GGF interested parties 
will get involved.

> My I-D on GSS_Store_cred() addresses some of the GGF GSS-API extensions
> issues head on with comments interspersed that are addressed to the GGF
> proponents, yet so far no comment from the GGF has come my way.  Yes,
> their spec orignated in GGF fora, but they are extending an
> IETF-originated spec and the IETF is still active in this area, so I
> think they should come to the IETF.
> 
> > What I would like to see is some of the IETF people send comments to the GGF,
> > and some of the GGF people show up at the IETF KITTEN BOF, and that at least
> > some of the GGF ideas end up in a new IETF GSS draft.
> 
> I did when I published my I-D on GSS_Store_cred().  You're the only one
> who answered.

What can I say, other then this note is going to the GGF, and maybe
someone will comment on it now. Here is the URL for those GGF members:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-williams-gssapi-store-deleg-creds-00.txt


> 
> Nico
> --

-- 

 Douglas E. Engert  <[email protected]>
 Argonne National Laboratory
 9700 South Cass Avenue
 Argonne, Illinois  60439 
 (630) 252-5444
-++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
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 protected]