Re: Q: Conflict between TSIG RFC and GSS-API documents

["Kevin J. Dunlap" <kevin@dunlap.org>]

As the implementor that found the problem that placed the lock 
on the GSS-API document, I belive that the lock should be removed 
once the TSIG RFC has the appropriate modifications made to allow
the GSS-TSIG draft to advance.  I don't think we should advance a
Draft that is not in compliance with the RFC it is ment to enhance.

-Kevin

Your message dated: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:36:24 EST
> From the minutes in ATLANTA:
>
>
>>GSSAPI and TSIG conflict:
>>     DNSEXT wg generated TSIG RFC
>>     DNSEXT wg processed gssapi TSIG
>>         just before rfc editor started 48hour period we got a report
>>         that there was a conflict between two the documents.
>>         TSIG specifies that TSIG can only be used if original query
>>           contains TSIG
>>         GSSAPI specifies that last message in TKEY exchange has TSIG
>>           last message is empty, and this proves the key negotiated is
>>           working from security point of view this is a good thing
>>
>>         TSIG needs minor updates before advancing to draft standard:
>>              is this extensions one of them?
>>
>>The sense of the room was that this was a reasonable extensions and the
>>chair is instructed to take this question to the mailing list.
>
>Does the mailing list agree with this assessment and give
>its consensus that the lock on the GSS-API document be lifted ?
>
>Silence will be taken as agreement.
>
>Please post objections before Feb 12'th.
>
>thanks
>         Olafur
>
>
>
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>