Re: GGF's extensions to GSS in Public Comment

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:37:38AM -0600, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> > Security ADs,
> > 
> > With my IETF-GGF liaison hat on... please note that the GGF's extensions
> > to the GSS-API are open for Public Comment (roughly the equivalent of an IETF
> > Last Call). So far, I hear that the GGF has not got any response from
> > attempts to get IETF comment (despite draft-engert-ggf-gss-extensions-00.txt).
> > This looks like the last chance. Can you kindly pass this on to some
> > competent reviewers?

I'm not sure when Mr. Carpenter wrote this since Doug did not include a
date in the log line, but I assume it was written long after I posted
draft-williams-gssapi-store-deleg-creds-00.txt to the I-D repository and
subsequent comments to GGF and IETF lists.

Neither my comments (made long ago on _both_, GGF and IETF lists) nor
Sam Hartman's (made on IETF lists; I don't know if he's posted on GGF
lists) seem to be appreciated by the GGF.

If I hear no replies anytime soon to my comments then I will give up
trying to comment on this proposal.  I can't say that my employer would
never implement it, but certainly I think there are serious flaws in
this proposal and I certainly would not want to implement it as it
stands.

> Last week I did send the note below [email protected] (and am cc'ing them 
> on this note.) There was one comment logged from an IETF member, Tim Alsop, which says:
> "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."

I hate to say this Doug but Tim's comment on the CAT WG list was the
least significant of all comments made recently.  Issues were raised,
particularly with respect to the way that the GGF has failed to address
comments raised on its and IETF's lists.  To quote the lone voice in
favor of the proposal as it stands and leave out the others is, well,
not useful.

> The consencus as far as I can tell is to talk about it at the proposed 
> CAT BOF at the next IETF. This may not be the time fram that the GGF was looking for. 

I don't quite agree with this.

The GGF could have responded to Sam's or my comments months ago.  It
still can.

And I would still welcome replies from the GGF and give them serious
consideration, and I'm sure Sam might be amenable also -- there's no
need to wait until August to discuss this.

No, there is no CAT WG (or successor), yet, but this does not mean that
an IETF document on GSS-API extensions can't be published, discussed and
progressed, if only the authors would deign to pursue it.

Let's not forget either that we (by which I mean Doug, myself and
others) have discussed some of these issues in hallway conversations at
IETF meetings and at KRB WG interim meetings, not just discussions on
some mailing lists; it's not as though the GGF published an IETF-related
proposal that the IETF then proceeded to ignore.

Cheers,

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]