Re: Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-referrals-13.txt

On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 15:34 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>     Jeffrey> 7) Section 11 includes a new PA type PA-REQ-ENC-PA-REP,
>     Jeffrey> which has a rather unwieldy name.  It looks like this is
>     Jeffrey> always empty in requests, and in replies contains a
>     Jeffrey> checksum, rather than encrypted data.  It seems like this
>     Jeffrey> could have a better name, such as PA-REQ-CHECKSUM.
> 
> I'd prefer  to keep the wording: we had a fair bit of WG discussion of
> this name going back to Larry's original proposal
> and Greg has explained why the current name  makes sense.

OK.


>     Jeffrey> 8) Section 11 refers to a key usage value KEY_USAGE_AS_REQ.
>     Jeffrey> But this is not called out in section 12 (Number
>     Jeffrey> assignments).  Is this value present in the key usage
>     Jeffrey> registry?
> 
> Section 12  is not actually a listing of numbers that have been
> assigned; this document doesn't have one of those.
> Instead section 12 is a TBD list of actions where we're waiting for Tom.
> 
> Based on our experience with OTP preauth I would recommend against
> adding a section describing all the number assignments that have been
> made for this spec.

We've discussed this, and as a result decided to remove that section
entirely.  -14 reflects this, and also the assignment for
AD-LOGIN-ALIAS.


>     Jeffrey> 9) Various acronyms need to be expanded on first use: Note
>     Jeffrey> that expansion in the abstract is not sufficient to cover
>     Jeffrey> uses elsewhere in the document.  - TGT (abstract) - AS, TGS
>     Jeffrey> (section 1, graf 1) - KDC (section 1, graf 2)

This didn't happen before -14 was submitted.  I'm adding an RFC-Editor
note to the writeup to handle these.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg