Ken Hornstein wrote: > > >GSS-API v2 has a de-facto maturity level of full standard. > > "If you say so". Regardless of that, however ... as far as the IETF is > concerned, it's de jure maturity level is still proposed. Whether or > not it would make sense to change it at this point is a question I'm > not qualified to answer, but certainly according to the process of the > IETF, it can be changed.
With the level of change that Sam and others are speaking of the complete architecture of GSS-API would have to change. That would mean that the spec would have to recycle at proposed. Let's see: We have an awfully large installed base of perfectly fine GSS-API v1/v2 (including rfc-1964 Kerberos for that matter, and I have a list of >20 independent implementations of non-Kerberos gssapi mechanisms). If you think you can convince the IESG that creating an incompatible spec with an uncooked architecture to be a successor of GSS-API v2 (which will then have to recycle at proposed) with a small number of potential implementors (if any) is worth a working group -- then go ahead and waste everyones time. -Martin -++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**== This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message body of "unsubscribe ietf-cat-wg" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
