Generic Security Service API Version 2: Java Bindings Update
draft-ietf-kitten-rfc2853bis-05

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to discuss these two items on the call and expect to clear after they have been clarified:

The numbers associated with the GSS Status Codes in Section 5.12.1 are different than they were in RFC2853 - does this create incompatibilities?

The document contains various snippets of example (C++?) code, but no code license.

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the places where "service@host" is used in examples.
  It would be better to use the domain names in RFC 2606 in examples.


  The Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo on 2-Jun-2009 included a few
  comments that shoule be considered:

  In general, Abstracts should not contain references. While referencing
  RFC 2853 to explain that this document obsoletes it is probably OK, I
  would remove the rest of the references from the Abstract.

  The naming of the references is not consistent. Some of them are named
  [RFCxxxx] but not all of them.

  In Section 4, a ':' to introduce the definition of each optional
  service would probably make the text clearer (e.g., Mutual
  Authentication: in addition...)

  The word "Section" should be capitalized when referring to a specific
  section (e.g., in Section 8).

  The ID nits tool makes a few observations about boilerplates. The
  authors should make sure that the boilerplates in the draft are okay.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Shawn Emery, yes, yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document had adequate review from the WG members and members that
were familiar with Java. The shepherd doesn't know of reviews by non WG
members.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosure is known to the author or the shepherd.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is WG consensus to publish the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

Nobody threatened to appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

idnits 2.11.07 found an error in this draft in response to false-
positives of Java package names. I know of no delimiting xml
tags to ignore these names.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are only normative references in the document. No downref references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

No ABNF, no MIB, no XML, and no ASN.1.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

This document clarifies and updates the Java bindings specification for
the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface
(GSS-API) version 2.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

Nothing worth noting regarding WG process.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at three vendors that have implemented the GSS-API Java
bindings, as this ID is an update to synchronize with the implementations.
*
* Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

Shawn M. Emery  is the document shepherd for this
document.