Re: GGF's extensions to GSS in Public Comment

 I posted the comments from Sam and John Lynn, the other reviewer Sam
mentioned, and sent out a pointer to the GGF list . You can see them
at the url below by clicking on the "View Comments" for the
GSS-Extensions document:

http://www.ggf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Public_Comment_Documents.htm

 To provide an update on the GGF process, I have suggested to the
working group that we change the nature of the GGF extensions document
from a recommendated standard to a Experimental document (to quote
from the GGF document process, an experimental document is "To inform
the community about a useful experiment, testbed, or implementation of
an idea of set of ideas.") The intent being this would serve to
capture the implementation and requirements without confusing the
standards space. So far there has been only agreement with the
suggestion, so at this time I expect that change to happen.

Von

Sam Hartman writes (21:23 April 23, 2004):
 > [ggf security group dropped; I'm not sure my comments are useful to
 > that forum.]
 > 
 > >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[email protected]> writes:
 > 
 > 
 >     >> Ideally, I agree - it would be nice we didn't have to use
 >     >> environment variables and didn't have to mess with this. But
 >     >> since we do, it seems like the best idea is to expose it so
 >     >> that it can be handled reasonably.
 > 
 >     Nicolas> You don't have to use environment variables.  Looks like
 >     Nicolas> you used them only because MIT krb5 did (and does).
 > 
 > 
 > Sorry for the long delay on this issue; somehow this thread got
 > missorted in my mail and I just now noticed it.
 > 
 > Random comments Nico has been making on the phone over the last week
 > all start to make more sense;)
 > 
 > MIT Kerberos only uses environment variables on some platforms.
 > Fundamentally the putenv solution does not even work with all the
 > common instances of the mechanisms for which it is designed.
 > 
 > In the interests of full disclosure, I was one of two reviewers
 > assigned to review this proposal for the security area.  My comments
 > were submitted to the ADs about two weeks ago, I believe they have
 > been sent to parties within the GGF, although Google suggests that no
 > one has made them available to the public.
 > 
 > --Sam
 > 
 > -++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
 > 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]
 > 

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