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

On 04/06/12 17:02, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "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.
Does it have to be Standards Track for that purpose?
(note: I don't have a strong opinion on this, just feel uneasy with 
using the watered down 2119 definitions in the draft and the 
name-mapping, and then to go for Standards Track....)

>
>
>      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?
Would work for me.

On a personal note: Would still be curious about the intentions for 
draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-set-passwd?

Best regards, Tobias