[AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-07

[Jeffrey Altman]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig683E510608CF82059DA39560
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 12/17/2010 12:59 PM, Simon Wilkinson wrote:

> My feeling is that both of these comments concern implementation specif=
ic issues. In addition, I think they've been raised very late. The mappin=
g language has existed within this document since the first draft, origin=
ally published in April of this year. There have been numerous calls for =
review on this list since then.
>=20
> My belief is that Last Call should be a place for those who feel that e=
arlier remarks have been ignored to raise their grievances, and for those=
 who have only just reviewed the document to raise major concerns. I'm no=
t convinced that they're an appropriate location for these kinds of minor=
 issues which should have been raised much earlier in the process.
>=20
> Otherwise, why should anyone bother reading a document before Last Call=
?
>=20

I raised the issue yesterday because my concern was literally brought to
my attention yesterday by an organization with a large AFS cell that is
trying to migrate off of krb524d.  krb524d is currently in use because
it provides a user principal name mapping built upon the use of wildcards=
=2E

I believe that Andrew's feedback is completely appropriate for a last
call.  The lack of a definition of "implicit mapping" vs "explicit
mapping" is not something that most readers would notice because I'm
sure that all of us just assume that we know what is meant.  It is only
when someone attempts to implement the specification that most
ambiguities are uncovered.  I would rather have someone discover a
weakness during Last Call than not have it discovered until after a
document is published.

My interpretation of explicit mappings are those mappings that can be
added, viewed and modified using the protocol specified in this
document.  Implicit mappings are those that are implemented in an
implementation specific manner such that they are invisible to the user
of this specification.  One example of such implicit mappings are the
krb5 to krb4 principal mappings built-in to OpenAFS rxkad.

I propose that we agree upon a definition to be added to the existing
document and conclude the Last Call since there appear to be no other
outstanding issues.

Jeffrey Altman




--------------enig683E510608CF82059DA39560
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
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=A1Wa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig683E510608CF82059DA39560--