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

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:43:38PM -0600, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > 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. 

Ok.  If they are then we should proceed that way or, better yet, see if
the GGF is willing to evolve their proposal so we can make it standards
track.

> > 
> > 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.

Well...  Last Fall I was definitely talking about GSS-API extensions at
the KRB WG; yes, we need KITTEN, but we can do more than wait for it.

> > 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

Thanks.  I note that this should expire soon.  I'll update it next week.

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]