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

Von Welch wrote:
> 
> Doug,
> 
>  I think we've shown with the Proxy Certificate work in pkix, we're
> happy to work in the IETF when an appropriate venue exists, but as you
> know there hasn't been a CAT group, or apparent hope of forming one,
> in some time. I think it's also clear that some folk in IETF don't
> believe that GGF is the appropriate place for GSS work and don't have
> interest in participating in such work in that forum.
> 
>  I'm not sure how you expect this situation to improve until KITTEN
> forms to pick up the work of the CAT group. At that time I would hope
> that group would consider the motivations, results and lessons learned
> from the GGF work even if they disagree with the specific
> solutions. It is unfortunate that our solutions were designed without
> the input of these many of these folks, but we needed to progress and
> the GGF path was the best option available.

I think we are almost in agreement here, and I would hope that you 
would consider participating in the KITTEN BOF.


> 
> Von
> 
> Douglas E. Engert writes (13:39 March 26, 2004):
>  >
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  >
>  > But I do see that Tim Alsop commented to the GGF:
>  >
>  >              This document (in my opinion) looks ready, but needs to be reviewed
>  >              by IETF CAT (or KITTEN) working group to see if there are any
>  >              concerns from IETF community.
>  >
>  > Thanks Tim.
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > > --Sam
>  >
>  > --
>  >
>  >  Douglas E. Engert  <[email protected]>
>  >  Argonne National Laboratory
>  >  9700 South Cass Avenue
>  >  Argonne, Illinois  60439
>  >  (630) 252-5444
>  >

-- 

 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]