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

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:38:23PM -0600, 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.

One does not need a WG to do actual work at the IETF -- it's just easier
if there is one.

Talk of KITTEN started about a year ago and now there seems to be a lot
of interest in a successor to CAT.  I started working on GSS-API
extensions about six months ago or so and had every intention of seeing
GSS_Store_cred() to at least informational status as a personal I-D, if
not better -- now that a KITTEN BoF is very much in the cards I think we
definitely should try for standards-track extensions.

Nico
-- 
-++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
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]