[Ietf-keyprov] Charter discussion - Kerberos

[Doherty, Andrea]

I agree that the reference to Kerberos in the first paragraph of the
proposed charter should be removed. 

 

I also agree that a paragraph similar to the one you suggest should be
added at the end; however, I would end that paragraph after the word
"protocols", as in:

 

"While the intended field of application should be narrowly drawn the
Working Group shall avoid unnecessary limitations and ensure the
potential for future extensibility by considering proof of concept
designs for application in other symmetric keyed protocols."

 

________________________________

From: ietf-keyprov-bounces at safehaus.org
[mailto:ietf-keyprov-bounces at safehaus.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:14 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; ietf-keyprov at safehaus.org
Cc: Sam Hartman
Subject: [Ietf-keyprov] Charter discussion - Kerberos

 

Further to the charter discussion I think we need to consider the role
of Kerberos.

 

The feeling I took away from the meeting was:

 

1) Kerberos is not a priority for KEYPROV (unanimous)

2) Nobody will object if KEYPROV turns out to support Kerberos

3) Nobody will object much if it turns out not to be possible to support
Kerberos easily

4) Many people would like us to avoid making KEYPROV unnecessarily
incompatible with Kerberos

 

What I take from this is that we should remove the reference to Kerberos
in the first paragraph of the proposed charter and instead add a
paragraph at the end something like:

 

"While the intended field of application should be narrowly drawn the
Working Group shall avoid unnecessary limitations and ensure the
potential for future extensibility by considering proof of concept
designs for application in other symmetric keyed protocols, in
particular Kerberos and DNSSEC."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.safehaus.org/pipermail/ietf-keyprov/attachments/20061117/103deb74/attachment.html