RFC 1510, for me, gave me the following:
by C Neuman - 1993 - Cited by 626 - Related articles
RFC 1510 Kerberos September 1993 Background The Kerberos model is based in part on Needham and Schroeder's trusted third-party authentication protocol ...by C Neuman - 2005 - Cited by 626 - Related articles
Abstract This document provides an overview and specification of Version 5 of the Kerberos protocol, and it obsoletes RFC 1510 to clarify aspects of the protocol ...The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5) (RFC 1510, September 1993; obsoleted by RFC 4120, RFC 6649)
Canonical URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1510.txt; File formats: icon for text file icon for PDF icon for HTML; Status: HISTORIC (changed from PROPOSED ...
[PDF]
Notes on RFC 4120 superseding RFC 1510
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/pdf00000.pdf
existed in RFC 1510. It should be noted that both RFC's give an overview and specification of Version 5 of the protocol for the Kerberos network authentication.
Note the two entries from tools.ietf..org before the datatracker entry.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:25 PM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:17 PM Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:39 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:50 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:30 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/7/19 9:52 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 06:13:08AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Dear IESG: can you report on the status of that project and when the
>> tools/datatracker sites will show inline errata?
> My understanding is that the code is done and waiting to be deployed.
>
> Alissa's note at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QDuj5ItTcY5nbVQVp7FMRjZiSZY may
> be the most authoritative thing I can point to right now.
This is currently in the rfc-editor's hands (as their plan is to deploy
it on the rfc-editor website).I certainly agree it would be good to deploy it on the rfc-editor web site, but lots of people go to datatracker and tools, so that shouldn't hold up deploying it on the IETF sites.Deploying it on rfc-editor.org seems fine, but of very little value compared to datatracker and tools. Google, for example, seems to stick to the following ranking when you search "RFC XXXX":(And indeed, sometimes puts other RFCs before rfc-editor.org, e.g.., https://www.google.com/search?q=rfc+5280)Google, FOR YOU, ranks the search results as above.There is no such thing anymore as a generic de novo naive search result from Google. What you get will very probably be different than what I get.Do you in fact get results different from the above?--RichardAs an added benefit, datatracker and tools are controlled by the IESG, so the changes can be deployed there without needing to trouble the RFC editor.--Richard-Ekr
RjS
>
> -Ben
>
--Clint Chaplin
Senior Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America
Clint Chaplin
Senior Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America
Senior Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America
