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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/04/2012 06:38 PM, 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....)

It isn't watered-down at all! The reason we have that section is to
clarify what an implementation of the information-model actually is (a
schema) and what it means to be compliant with the information model.

The RFC2919 terms mean what they always mean - just in a non-typical
context (i.e not just viz an bits-on-the-wire implementation)

	Cheers Leif

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/NBV0ACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnf+BwCfbkN1S6Em41wIwmyh0cR8FIFE
ssQAnR3s0TtpUcpih689UPwb8Mc50GoA
=X0lz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----