Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model

>>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Gondrom <[email protected]> writes:


    Tobias> One basic question:
    Tobias> This draft aims for Standards Track, yet as far as I understood, it is
    Tobias> not required that the used field names are in fact the same across
    Tobias> different implementations but only that name-mappings exist. The ID
    Tobias> also uses a modified RFC2119 language definition to allow that.
    Tobias> I would like to ask, whether possibly Informational Status would be
    Tobias> more appropriate for this draft?

My concern is that this does specify mandatory behavior of
implementations and that it's likely that a schema would want to
normatively refer to this document for semantics of attributes.


    Tobias> reference to expired ID: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-set-passwd
    Tobias> Am not so happy that the draft refers to drafts (which is expired in
    Tobias> 2009) for set/change password protocol. I lack the knowledge of the
    Tobias> context of why the WG chose to expire this ID at the time and why it
    Tobias> is now used as a reference here. Is there another resource you could
    Tobias> refer to instead? Do you want to revive the set-passwd ID?
    Tobias> Especially as the reference is part of a mandatory part ("SHALL only")
    Tobias> of the security considerations 6, I am having a hard time to see this
    Tobias> as only "informational" and how to refer here to an expired draft....

Leif, I think it would be desirable to clean up section 6 to imply that
we expect there to be protocols to use to write keys such as the
set/change password protocol.  Possibly adding a note that a schema that
implements keys at all is expected to choose a normative protocol for
writing key objects.

Do people think that would be a good approach for this?