--- /dev/null
+
+
+NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams
+Internet-Draft Sun
+Expires: December 30, 2004 July 2004
+
+
+ Namespace Considerations and Registries for GSS-API Extensions
+ draft-williams-gssapi-extensions-iana-00.txt
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
+ patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
+ and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
+ RFC 3668.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
+ other groups may also distribute working documents as
+ Internet-Drafts.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2004.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document describes the ways in which the GSS-API may be extended
+ and directs the creation of IANA registries for GSS-API namespaces
+ that may be affected by any extensions.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 1]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 3. Extensions to the GSS-API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 4. Generic GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 5. Language Binding-Specific GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 6. Extension-Specific GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 9. Normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 11
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 2]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+1. Conventions used in this document
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 3]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+2. Introduction
+
+ There is a need for generic and mechanism-specific extensions to the
+ Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface
+ (GSS-API). As such extensions are designed and standardized, both at
+ the IETF and elsewhere, there is a non-trivial risk of namespace
+ pollution and conflicts. To avoid this we set out guidelines for
+ extending the GSS-API and create IANA registries of GSS-API
+ namespaces.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 4]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+3. Extensions to the GSS-API
+
+ Extensions to the GSS-API can be categorized as follows:
+ o Generic
+ o Implementation-specific
+ o Mechanism-specific
+ o Language binding-specific
+ o Any combination of two or all three of the last three
+
+ Extensions to the GSS-API may be purely semantic, without effect on
+ the GSS-API's namespaces. Or they may introduce new functions,
+ constants, types, etc...; these clearly affect the GSS-API
+ namespaces.
+
+ Extensions that affect the GSS-API namespaces should be registered
+ with the IANA< along with their specific effects on the GSS-API
+ namespaces.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 5]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+4. Generic GSS-API Namespaces
+
+ All the function, constant and type names, as well as all the
+ constant values specified in the base GSS-API specification for the
+ basic generic GSS-API namespace.
+
+ The generic GSS-API namespaces are:
+ o Type names
+ o Function names
+ o Constant names for each type
+ o Constant values for each type
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 6]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+5. Language Binding-Specific GSS-API Namespaces
+
+ <Add text; discuss header, module, library, class namespaces and
+ whatever else comes up that is language-specific and appropriate for
+ registration with the IANA.>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 7]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+6. Extension-Specific GSS-API Namespaces
+
+ Extensions to the GSS-API may create additional namespaces. IANA
+ registries SHOULD be created for any such new namespaces.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 8]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+7. IANA Considerations
+
+ The following registries should be established upon publication of
+ this document as an RFC:
+ o GSS-API Type Name Registry
+ o GSS-API Function Name Registry
+ o GSS-API Constant Name Registry
+ o GSS-API Constant Value Registry
+ o GSS-API Class/Header/Library/Module Name Registry
+
+ Entries in these registries should consist of:
+ o Namespace name
+ o Symbol name or prefix, OR value or value range.
+ o [optional] Reference to normative reference for the registration.
+ o [optional] Programming language
+ o [optional] Entry sub-type (e.g., "header name")
+ o [optional] Mechanism OID(s) and/or OID prefix(es) associated with
+ the entry
+ o [optional] Magic
+ o [optional] Expert Review (body or people who reviewed the
+ registration)
+ o [optional] Description (in English)
+
+ <Add text on guidelines for IANA consideration of registration
+ applications, particularly with respect to entries w/o normative
+ references, "magic" entries (e.g., special values of 'time' types
+ which indicate something other than absolute or relative time, such
+ as GSS_C_INDEFINITE), expert review requirements for registrations w/
+ o normative references, etc....>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 9]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+ This document has no security considerations.
+
+9 Normative
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
+
+ [RFC2744] Wray, J., "Generic Security Service API Version 2 :
+ C-bindings", RFC 2744, January 2000.
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Nicolas Williams
+ Sun Microsystems
+ 5300 Riata Trace Ct
+ Austin, TX 78727
+ US
+
+ EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 10]
+\f
+Internet-Draft GSS-API Namespace Considerations July 2004
+
+
+Intellectual Property Statement
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+Disclaimer of Validity
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+ ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+ INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+ INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
+ to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
+ except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+
+Acknowledgment
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+ Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+Williams Expires December 30, 2004 [Page 11]
+\f
+
git.samba.org / samba.git / blobdiff