Skip to main content

Problem Statement on the Cross-Realm Operation of Kerberos
RFC 5868

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document provides background information regarding large-scale Kerberos deployments in the industrial sector, with the aim …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document provides background information regarding large-scale Kerberos deployments in the industrial sector, with the aim of identifying issues in the current Kerberos cross-realm authentication model as defined in RFC 4120.

This document describes some examples of actual large-scale industrial systems, and lists requirements and restrictions regarding authentication operations in such environments. It also identifies a number of requirements derived from the industrial automation field. Although they are found in the field of industrial automation, these requirements are general enough and are applicable to the problem of Kerberos cross-realm operations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.')
2017-05-16
06 (System) Changed document authors from "Masahiro Ishiyama, Shoichi Sakane, Saber Zrelli" to "Masahiro Ishiyama, Shoichi Sakane, Saber Zrelli, Ken'ichi Kamada"
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from krb-wg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2010-05-27
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-05-27
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5868' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-05-26
06 (System) RFC published
2010-03-23
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-03-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-03-22
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-03-22
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-03-22
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-01-05
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2010-01-05
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-01-05
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-06.txt
2009-10-22
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-21
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-10-21
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Brian Carpenter provided a Gen-ART review of -04.  There where substantial
  changes to create -05.  Brian was not able to review all …
[Ballot discuss]
Brian Carpenter provided a Gen-ART review of -04.  There where substantial
  changes to create -05.  Brian was not able to review all of the changes,
  but he does report that hes concerns with sections 5.5 and 5.6 were not
  resolved.  Brian's summary of his concerns is below.  These concerns
  deserve discussion.

  Section 5.5 makes a general assumption that a TGS exchange taking ~200ms
  is okay, but several times this is not. That may be true for the particular
  type of control system the authors consider, but may be wildly wrong (in
  either direction) for other controls applications. Also, the associated
  recommendations R-6 and R-7 are written as generalisations that I don't
  think offer any useful engineering guidance for protocol design.

  Section 5.6 describes a chicken-and-egg problem in authentication for
  roaming users but all it really does is transfer that chicken-and-egg
  problem into requirements R-3 and R-4. It's very circular, and the
  correct conclusion might be quite different: don't even try to solve
  this using Kerberos; use an IPsec (or TLS or SSH) session to connect
  into the home Kerberos domain.
2009-10-21
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-10-21
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-10-21
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-10-21
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-10-19
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk
2009-10-19
06 Tim Polk Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk
2009-10-18
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-05.txt
2009-10-17
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-10-16
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-10-16
06 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2009-10-16
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Steve Hanna.
2009-10-02
06 Tim Polk Telechat date was changed to 2009-10-22 from 2009-10-08 by Tim Polk
2009-09-15
06 Tim Polk Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 by Tim Polk
2009-08-14
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-06
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2009-08-06
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2009-08-06
06 Samuel Weiler Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Larry Zhu was rejected
2009-08-05
06 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-08-03
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu
2009-08-03
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu
2009-07-31
06 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2009-07-31
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2009-07-31
06 Tim Polk State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Tim Polk
2009-07-31
06 Tim Polk Last Call was requested by Tim Polk
2009-07-31
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-07-31
06 (System) Last call text was added
2009-07-31
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-07-31
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-31
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-04.txt
2009-05-14
06 Tim Polk State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Tim Polk
2008-11-19
06 Tim Polk Status date has been changed to 2008-12-04 from
2008-11-19
06 Tim Polk State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Tim Polk
2008-10-31
06 Cindy Morgan
This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of
"Problem statement on the cross-realm operation of Kerberos",
draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-03.txt, as an Informational
RFC. …
This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of
"Problem statement on the cross-realm operation of Kerberos",
draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-03.txt, as an Informational
RFC. This document is a product of the Kerberos Working Group.

(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?

>> The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman,
>> . I have reviewed this document, and I believe
>> it is ready for IETF-wide review and publication as a
>> Proposed Standard.

(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?

>> This document has received review both within the working group
>> and from key experts outside the working group. Any issues raised
>> have been resolved.

(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?

>> I don't believe any particular outside review is required.
>> Of course, more review is always welcome.

(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.

>> I have no concerns.
>> No IPR disclosures related to this document have been filed.

(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 concensus within the working group to publish this
>> document. There is also consensus that standardized
>> solutions are desirable for some, but not necessarily all,
>> of the problems described in this 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.)

>> There have been no expressions of discontent.

(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?

>> This document has been run through the idnits tool, and was
>> reviewed manually for compliance with requirements not checked
>> by the automatic tool. No additional formal review criteria
>> apply to this 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].

>> References have been split appropriately. There are no
>> normative downward references or normative references to
>> documents that are not ready for advancement. Several
>> informative references are to URL's which may or may not
>> be stable; however, as these are provided for background
>> on companies, projects, and processor products, they are
>> relatively unimportant and no more stable reference is
>> likely to be available.

(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?

>> This is an informational document describing various
>> problems related to cross-realm Kerberos operation. It is
>> descriptive in nature and as such, requires no action by
>> IANA.

(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 part of this document is written in a formal language
>> requiring such verification.

(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

There are some issues when the cross-realm operation of the Kerberos
Version 5 [RFC4120] is employed into actual specific systems. This
document describes some examples of actual systems, and lists
requirements and restriction of the operation in such system. Then
it describes issues when we apply the cross-realm operation to such
system.


Working Group Summary

This document represents the consensus of the Kerberos Working Group.


Document Quality

This document does not specify a protocol; rather, it analyzes the
use of Kerberos cross-realm authentication and discusses a number
of issues which may impede some deployments. Solutions to some of
these problems are under active development.


Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman.
The responsible Area Director is Tim Polk.
2008-10-31
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-10-30
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-03.txt
2007-12-18
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-02.txt
2007-11-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-01.txt
2007-10-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-krb-wg-cross-problem-statement-00.txt