[kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Robbie Harwood
Hello Scott and Simon,

There are a number of issues flagged by idnits [1][2] that I believe
need to be addressed:

- rfc4402 is obsoleted by rfc7802.

- rfc2617 is obsoleted by several things; I think here we're probably
  looking for rfc7617.

- rfc5246 is obsoleted by rfc8446.

- rfc2616 is obsoleted by several things; I think here we're probably
  looking for rfc7230.  I could see an argument for using the
  obsolete one if it's more correct, but...

- rfc3920 is obsoleted by rfc6120.

Additionally, it doesn't like having a separate "Normative References"
and "Normative References for GSS-API Implementers" section.  While I
don't know that it's technically required to name the sections a certain
way, I think it would be easiest to make a single "Normative References"
section.

Could you please address these and resubmit?

Thanks,
--Robbie

1: https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-ec-18.txt
2: https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits/

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Cantor, Scott
On 8/22/19, 5:14 PM, "Robbie Harwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Additionally, it doesn't like having a separate "Normative References"
> and "Normative References for GSS-API Implementers" section.  While I
> don't know that it's technically required to name the sections a certain
> way, I think it would be easiest to make a single "Normative References"
> section.

That was taken verbatim from the earlier GS2 mechanims, I believe, but it doesn't matter to me.

> Could you please address these and resubmit?

Won't be until next week probably.

-- Scott


_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Robbie Harwood
"Cantor, Scott" <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 8/22/19, 5:14 PM, "Robbie Harwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, it doesn't like having a separate "Normative
>> References" and "Normative References for GSS-API Implementers"
>> section.  While I don't know that it's technically required to name
>> the sections a certain way, I think it would be easiest to make a
>> single "Normative References" section.
>
> That was taken verbatim from the earlier GS2 mechanims, I believe, but
> it doesn't matter to me.
Ah, okay.  Either way should be fine then; I'll just note it in the
review.

Thanks,
--Robbie

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Benjamin Kaduk-2
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:

> "Cantor, Scott" <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > On 8/22/19, 5:14 PM, "Robbie Harwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Additionally, it doesn't like having a separate "Normative
> >> References" and "Normative References for GSS-API Implementers"
> >> section.  While I don't know that it's technically required to name
> >> the sections a certain way, I think it would be easiest to make a
> >> single "Normative References" section.
> >
> > That was taken verbatim from the earlier GS2 mechanims, I believe, but
> > it doesn't matter to me.
>
> Ah, okay.  Either way should be fine then; I'll just note it in the
> review.

My recollection is that the references have to be divided into normative
vs. informative, but that further subdivision is not precluded.  So,
sticking to tradition is probably okay (but we may get further comments
about it from directorate and/or IESG reviews).

-Ben

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Cantor, Scott
In reply to this post by Robbie Harwood
> Could you please address these and resubmit?

This is done. I decided to go ahead and merge the reference sections, I don't think maintaining the split adds enough value to be arguing with anybody over it.

All of the RFC updates were obvious, save for one. I did move the TLS 1.2 client authn reference to TLS 1.3, but I hesitated because that's really a conformance/interop sort of consideration, and TLS 1.2 client authn is not the same as 1.3 and is definitely not the same from a ubiquity / interop point of view. But given that the number of implementations of this is and will always be very small, I decided to be forward looking and just rev it.

-- Scott


_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] sasl-saml-ec-18: bookkeeping changes requested

Benjamin Kaduk-2
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:36:54PM +0000, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> > Could you please address these and resubmit?
>
> This is done. I decided to go ahead and merge the reference sections, I don't think maintaining the split adds enough value to be arguing with anybody over it.
>
> All of the RFC updates were obvious, save for one. I did move the TLS 1.2 client authn reference to TLS 1.3, but I hesitated because that's really a conformance/interop sort of consideration, and TLS 1.2 client authn is not the same as 1.3 and is definitely not the same from a ubiquity / interop point of view. But given that the number of implementations of this is and will always be very small, I decided to be forward looking and just rev it.

That's a fair decision to make; I'll just note for future reference that we
do have a fair number of documents getting published that reference both
5246 and 8446 by virtue of needing to interact with the bits that have
different semantics between TLS versions.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten