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

On 04/06/12 18:51, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> 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.

Will try to answer to that together with Sam's and Leif's email.

>
>> 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.

It expired in 2009. That is even by IETF standards a long time to 
eventually return to the draft.

Best regards, Tobias



>
> -- Jeff
>