Skip to main content

Namespace Considerations and Registries for GSS-API Extensions

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
11 (System) Document has expired
11 (System) IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching
11 Eric Rescorla Shepherding AD changed to Eric Rescorla
11 Eric Rescorla IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead
11 Benjamin Kaduk New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-11.txt
11 (System) New version approved
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors:, Alexey Melnikov , Nicolas Williams
11 Benjamin Kaduk Uploaded new revision
10 (System) Notify list changed from, to (None)
10 (System) Document has expired
10 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-10.txt
09 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-09.txt
08 (System) Document has expired
08 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-08.txt
07 (System) Document has expired
07 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching
07 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-07.txt
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
06 (System) Last call text was added
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
06 (System) Document has expired
06 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching.
06 Stephen Farrell
State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed.
Hanging about too long. Will need a new WGLC if not set to dead. …
State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed.
Hanging about too long. Will need a new WGLC if not set to dead. I've asked WG chairs to sort it by Jan 16.
06 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD has been changed to Stephen Farrell from Tim Polk
06 Tim Polk State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by Tim Polk
06 Tim Polk Note field has been cleared by Tim Polk
06 Tim Polk asking for early feedback from IANA
06 Tim Polk State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation by Tim Polk
06 Tim Polk State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Tim Polk
06 Cindy Morgan
(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 …
(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 IANA. The shepherd doesn't know of reviews by non WG

(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?


(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 and 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 2.11.09 found no nits in the document.

(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. In addition to the existing RFCs
that will populate the initial IANA registries:

RFC2743, RFC2744, RFC2853, RFC1964 and RFC4121.

there will be one individual submission that will also be a part of the
initial registry:


(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 provides IANA procedures for registering new extensions to
the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface (GSS-API).

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

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?

This ID provides procedures for populating existing namespace IANA
registries and describes guidance for future GSS-API extension
registries. In regards to the existing namespace; there will be a
review by the WG and chairs of the existing RFCs and verification of
implementations in order to verify that these are in sync.


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

Shawn M. Emery  is the document shepherd for this
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-06.txt
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-05.txt
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-04.txt
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-03.txt
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-01.txt
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-00.txt