Re: Document editors

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:47PM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > Are there any parties who would be willing to edit the base spec and C
> > bindings if we do manage to have a WG?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You meant to be asking for a document editor for the extension document(s)
> ggf, nick's credentials stuff, nick's channel-bindings stuff and
> your BCP, right?
> 
> "base spec" and "C bindings" sound too much like rfc-2743/2744,
> but those specs are in perfectly good shape, don't need any fixing
> and certainly don't need any editing to accomodate any of
> the extensions above or the BCP document.

There's at least some minor things (e.g., we should move the model of
channel bindings data from the C-bindings).

And we should clarify the name game issue we were arguing about
yesterday, particularly considering that rfc1964 implementations have
been canonicalizing the target_name of GSS_Init_sec_context() forever.

Most everything else I do see as either new [optional] optional
interfaces (GGF extensions, stackable pseudo-mech framework) or new
mechanisms, BCPs and the channel bindings draft.

One thing I think could be added to the base spec (though it might
require convincing the GGF folk -- note: let's not argue this _now_; I'm
pointing out how the base spec might change) is the GSS_Store_cred()
extension, since it fixes a serious gap in the spec.

So, yes, the base specs might be in for some changes.

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]