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

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 17:38 +0100, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> 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....)

The present document is a data model.  Its "implementations" are schemas
or the like; that is, other documents.  The RFC2119 language is in fact
not "watered down"; rather, it is the case that, for example, we may
REQUIRE a schema to include a particular field without requiring that
every implementation of that schema support that field.

The particular point you raised about names is not, in fact a problem.
Read with the understanding that an implementation of this document is a
schema or the like and _not_ a piece of software, the language in the
third paragraph of section 1 means that an LDAP schema or XML DTD based
on this document would not be required to use the same field names as
are used in the model, provided the document defining such a schema or
DTD makes clear which of its fields correspond to which fields in the
data model.

Yes, this document wants to be standards track.  It is intended to
define the semantics of data items used by the KDC and made visible in
one or more standards track management protocols.

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

It is an item on our current charter, to which we intend eventually to
return.  Both the author and the working group have been concentrating
on other work for some time.

-- Jeff

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