[Ietf-keyprov] RE: Charter discussion - Kerberos

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

That is my feeling precisely.

I will object to considering a Kerberos binding if any of the following appear to be the case:

1) it appears to be a rathole  
2) it appears to be a poor technical match
3) there are insufficient people to work on and review it

The point of looking at other related applications is primarily to inform the design of the base specification and help us understand it better.

I think that done right this is a very good design practice as it helps to eliminate the type of 'special pleading' that sometimes leads to designs so narrowly targeted that they have to be redesigned to meet its own needs let alon expand to other areas of application.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf at mit.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: ietf-keyprov at safehaus.org; Russ Housley
> Subject: Re: Charter discussion - Kerberos
> 
> I mostly agree with what you say.
> 
> I will however strongly object if there is an attempt to use 
> keyprov for Kerberos and it's not a good fit.  So, provided 
> that we're all clear that a Kerberos-specific protocol is 
> better than a bad match between Kerberos and keyprov, your 
> text seems OK to me.
> 
> 
>