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.
CAT and GSS-API don't quite align with IETF formalities. The Kerberos WG doesn't do that either (and IPsec didn't in a few aspects). Fortunately the IESG is capable of applying common sense when it sees merit. I assume that at least the IESG has some residue of commen sense when assessing the maturity of a protocol spec. Normally a WG should complete a document within a matter of months. GSS-API v2 took 6 years. rfc1510bis is probably going to set new records. After so-many month at proposed (18?) a spec should either be worked up to draft through the necessary procedures by the working group or the document should move to historic... Kerberos (rfc1510) as well as all of GSS-API (rfc1964,2025,2478,2743,2744) have never moved beyond proposed, mostly because it was so much effort to get the published in the first place. Considering the amount of care that several people on the Kerberos WG put on backwards compatibility with the installed base (and even with implementations that didn't actually implement the spec correctly, but still they are cared for) I'm really disappointed how reckless they talk of GSS-API and it's installed base of perfectly functioning and fully compliant implementations. I really whished some guys here would put more effort in getting the work on Kerberos clarifications and maybe extensions done... -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]
