Subject: Re: [kitten] Kitten and Krb-wg Merger

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:11:52 -0500

On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 20:34 -0700, Shawn M Emery wrote:
> In light of the pending merger between the kitten and Kerberos WGs we 
> have compiled a list of possible work items to start the 
> merger/recharter discussions during the combined session on Tuesday.  We 
> are looking for feedback on this and other items that should be 
> considered for the new charter.

>      * Prepare and advance a standards-track specification defining a
>        format for the transport of Kerberos credentials within other
>        protocols.

This is an item taken from krb-wg's current charter.  However, we
actually completed that item with the publication of RFC6448 last fall.

Your list omits four items which appear on the current krb-wg charter:

* Set/Change Password -- I believe this was very nearly done the last
  time we looked at it, but that was some time ago and there's been no
  movement since.  So, while I'm disappointed to see it go, it probably
  does not belong in the new charter.

* IAKERB - This is in a similar situation, though I don't think it's
  been inactive quite as long.

* IANA - This is fairly important work and is actually active right now.
  Of course, I'd be happy to see this left out of the charter due to
  having been completed before the merge is finished.

* Enctype work -- The current Kerberos WG is chartered to "prepare,
  review, and advance" RFC3961 enctypes on an ongoing basis(*).  This
  empowers us to do new enctype work ourselves and to review and discuss
  enctype work being done by individuals.  While krb-wg has completed a
  document under this item, it was intended to be an ongoing item, such
  that enctype work always remains in scope.  I believe this remains
  important for the combined WG, particularly since RFC3961 enctypes are
  used not only in Kerberos itself but also in an increasing number of
  GSS-API mechanisms which use RFC4121 per-message tokens.

-- Jeff

(*) Actually, it contains two items with this language.  As far as I can
recall, this is the result of an editing error, and only the second,
more verbose paragraph should be retained.

---

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:47:33 -0700

> actually completed that item with the publication of RFC6448 last fall.

Sorry, this was elided from the list that was presented during the 
working group session.  I will send out an updated list along with 
interest from the session's participants for each of the items discussed.

>    does not belong in the new charter.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no current 
volunteers for progressing this work item.

>    been inactive quite as long.

Same as above.

>    having been completed before the merge is finished.

Yes, this was also on the list discussed during the session and probably 
won't be completed before the recharter.

>    GSS-API mechanisms which use RFC4121 per-message tokens.

During the session, this was discussed and was merged into one work item.

> more verbose paragraph should be retained.

Thanks for your review Jeff.  I should have the updated list (with 
interest polled during the session) on the alias in about a week.

Shawn.
--
kitten co-chair