Re: [David Leonard] draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-09.txt comments

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%sun.com@localhost>]

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:32, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> I have been asked to submit an updated version of this document within the 
> next few days, in order to get it on the agenda for the September 1 IESG 
> telechat.  Unless Bill finds that we have consensus for a change in this 
> area, I will submit the draft early next week with no further changes.

<wg chair hat on>

I've reviewed the messages exchanged so far on this issue.

I see what looks like consensus that there's a hole in the spec: the
spec as it stands is silent on what an implementation should do if a
hostname is not available.  

<wg chair hat off for remainder of message>

IMHO, the main thing that matters for interoperability is the complete
client system behavior rather than the behavior of the part of the
system which is above the GSS *API* boundary.  

Given that this question is being looked at within GSSAPI, perhaps the
best we can say for now is that if a client system implementing this
specification is unable to securely determine which hostname and/or GSS
target name to use, then it SHOULD NOT use this mechanism.

If the GSS API is later enhanced to provide a secure address->hostname
translation function, then *this spec* does not need to be revised to
account for this change.

Comments?

						- Bill