[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4121

<Network Working Group>                                       Larry Zhu
Internet Draft                                       Karthik Jaganathan
Updates: 1964                                                 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track                                   Sam Hartman
draft-ietf-krb-wg-gssapi-cfx-03.txt                                 MIT
                                                       October 26, 2003
                                                Expires: April 26, 2004

          The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism: Version 2

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of [RFC-2026].

   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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   This memo defines protocols, procedures, and conventions to be
   employed by peers implementing the Generic Security Service
   Application Program Interface (GSS-API as specified in [RFC-2743])
   when using the Kerberos Version 5 mechanism (as specified in

   [RFC-1964] is updated and incremental changes are proposed in
   response to recent developments such as the introduction of Kerberos
   crypto framework [KCRYPTO].  These changes support the inclusion of
   new cryptosystems based on crypto profiles [KCRYPTO], by defining
   new per-message tokens along with their encryption and checksum

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].

1. Introduction

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           1 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   [KCRYPTO] defines a generic framework for describing encryption and
   checksum types to be used with the Kerberos protocol and associated

   [RFC-1964] describes the GSS-API mechanism for Kerberos Version 5.
   It defines the format of context establishment, per-message and
   context deletion tokens and uses algorithm identifiers for each
   cryptosystem in per message and context deletion tokens.

   The approach taken in this document obviates the need for algorithm
   identifiers.  This is accomplished by using the same encryption
   algorithm, specified by the crypto profile [KCRYPTO] for the session
   key or subkey that is created during context negotiation, and its
   required checksum algorithm.  Message layouts of the per-message
   tokens are therefore revised to remove algorithm indicators and also
   to add extra information to support the generic crypto framework

   Tokens transferred between GSS-API peers for security context
   establishment are also described in this document.  The data
   elements exchanged between a GSS-API endpoint implementation and the
   Kerberos KDC are not specific to GSS-API usage and are therefore
   defined within [KRBCLAR] rather than within this specification.

   The new token formats specified in this memo MUST be used with all
   "newer" encryption types [KRBCLAR] and MAY be used with "older"
   encryption types, provided that the initiator and acceptor know,
   from the context establishment, that they can both process these new
   token formats.

   "Newer" encryption types are those which have been specified along
   with or since the new Kerberos cryptosystem specification [KCRYPTO],
   as defined in section 3.1.3 of [KRBCLAR].

   Note that in this document, the term "little endian order" is used
   for brevity to refer to the least-significant-octet-first encoding,
   while the term "big endian order" is for the most-significant-octet-
   first encoding.

2. Key Derivation for Per-Message Tokens

   To limit the exposure of a given key, [KCRYPTO] adopted "one-way"
   "entropy-preserving" derived keys, for different purposes or key
   usages, from a base key or protocol key.  This document defines four
   key usage values below for signing and sealing messages:

        Name                         Value
       KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SEAL         22
       KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SIGN         23
       KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SEAL        24
       KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SIGN        25

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           2 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   When the sender is the context acceptor, KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SIGN is
   used as the usage number in the key derivation function for deriving
   keys to be used in MIC tokens, and KG-USAGE-ACCEPTOR-SEAL is used
   for Wrap tokens; similarly when the sender is the context initiator,
   KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SIGN is used as the usage number in the key
   derivation function for MIC tokens, KG-USAGE-INITIATOR-SEAL is used
   for Wrap Tokens.  Even if the Wrap token does not provide for
   confidentiality the same usage values specified above are used.

   During the context initiation and acceptance sequence, the acceptor
   MAY assert a subkey.  If the acceptor asserts a subkey, subsequent
   messages SHOULD use this subkey as the protocol key and these
   messages MUST be flagged as "AcceptorSubkey" as described in section

3. Quality of Protection

   The GSS-API specification [RFC-2743] provides for Quality of
   Protection (QOP) values that can be used by applications to request
   a certain type of encryption or signing.  A zero QOP value is used
   to indicate the "default" protection; applications which do not use
   the default QOP are not guaranteed to be portable across
   implementations or even inter-operate with different deployment
   configurations of the same implementation.  Using an algorithm that
   is different from the one for which the key is defined may not be
   appropriate.  Therefore, when the new method in this document is
   used, the QOP value is ignored.

   The encryption and checksum algorithms in per-message tokens are now
   implicitly defined by the algorithms associated with the session key
   or subkey.  Algorithms identifiers as described in [RFC-1964] are
   therefore no longer needed and removed from the new token headers.

4. Definitions and Token Formats

   This section provides terms and definitions, as well as descriptions
   for tokens specific to the Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API mechanism.

4.1. Context Establishment Tokens

   All context establishment tokens emitted by the Kerberos V5 GSS-API
   mechanism will have the framing shown below:



         MechType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
         -- representing Kerberos V5 mechanism

         GSSAPI-Token ::=
         -- option indication (delegation, etc.) indicated within
         -- mechanism-specific token

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           3 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

                 thisMech MechType,
                 innerToken ANY DEFINED BY thisMech
                    -- contents mechanism-specific
                    -- ASN.1 structure not required


   Where the notation and encoding of this pseudo ASN.1 header, which
   is referred as the generic GSS-API token framing later in this
   document, are described in [RFC-2743], and the innerToken field
   starts with a two-octet token-identifier (TOK_ID) expressed in big
   endian order, followed by a Kerberos message.

   Here are the TOK_ID values used in the context establishment tokens:

         Token               TOK_ID Value in Hex
         KRB_AP_REQUEST        01 00
         KRB_AP_REPLY          02 00
         KRB_ERROR             03 00

   Where Kerberos message KRB_AP_REQUEST, KRB_AP_REPLY, and KRB_ERROR
   are defined in [KRBCLAR].

   If an unknown token identifier (TOK_ID) is received in the initial
   context estalishment token, the receiver MUST return
   GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED major status, and the returned output token
   MUST contain a KRB_ERROR message with the error code

4.1.1. Authenticator Checksum

   The authenticator in the KRB_AP_REQ message MUST include the
   optional sequence number and the checksum field.  The checksum field
   is used to convey service flags, channel bindings, and optional
   delegation information.  The checksum type MUST be 0x8003.  The
   length of the checksum MUST be 24 octets when delegation is not
   used.  When delegation is used, a ticket-granting ticket will be
   transferred in a KRB_CRED message.  This ticket SHOULD have its
   forwardable flag set.  The KRB_CRED message MUST be encrypted in the
   session key of the ticket used to authenticate the context.

   The format of the authenticator checksum field is as follows.

      Octet    Name      Description
      0..3    Lgth    Number of octets in Bnd field;  Currently
                      contains hex value 10 00 00 00 (16, represented
                      in little-endian order)
      4..19   Bnd     Channel binding information, as described in
      20..23  Flags   Four-octet context-establishment flags in little-
                      endian order as described in section

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           4 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

      24..25  DlgOpt  The Delegation Option identifier (=1) [optional]
      26..27  Dlgth   The length of the Deleg field [optional]
      28..n   Deleg   A KRB_CRED message (n = Dlgth + 29) [optional] Checksum Flags Field

   The checksum "Flags" field is used to convey service options or
   extension negotiation information.  The following context
   establishment flags are defined in [RFC-2744].

        Flag Name              Value
       GSS_C_DELEG_FLAG           1
       GSS_C_MUTUAL_FLAG          2
       GSS_C_REPLAY_FLAG          4
       GSS_C_SEQUENCE_FLAG        8
       GSS_C_CONF_FLAG           16
       GSS_C_INTEG_FLAG          32

   Context establishment flags are exposed to the calling application.
   If the calling application desires a particular service option then
   it requests that option via GSS_Init_sec_context() [RFC-2743].  An
   implementation that supports a particular option or extension SHOULD
   then set the appropriate flag in the checksum Flags field.

   The most significant eight bits of the checksum flags are reserved
   for future use.  The receiver MUST ignore unknown checksum flags. Channel Binding Information

   Channel bindings are user-specified tags to identify a given context
   to the peer application.  These tags are intended to be used to
   identify the particular communications channel that carries the
   context [RFC-2743] [RFC-2744].

   When using C language bindings, channel bindings are communicated to
   the GSS-API using the following structure [RFC-2744]:

      typedef struct gss_channel_bindings_struct {
         OM_uint32       initiator_addrtype;
         gss_buffer_desc initiator_address;
         OM_uint32       acceptor_addrtype;
         gss_buffer_desc acceptor_address;
         gss_buffer_desc application_data;
      } *gss_channel_bindings_t;

   The member fields and constants used for different address types are
   defined in [RFC-2744].

   The "Bnd" field contains the MD5 hash of channel bindings, taken
   over all non-null components of bindings, in order of declaration.
   Integer fields within channel bindings are represented in little-
   endian order for the purposes of the MD5 calculation.

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           5 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   In computing the contents of the Bnd field, the following detailed
   points apply:

   (1) Each integer field shall be formatted into four octets, using
   little endian octet ordering, for purposes of MD5 hash computation.

   (2) All input length fields within gss_buffer_desc elements of a
   gss_channel_bindings_struct even those which are zero-valued, shall
   be included in the hash calculation; the value elements of
   gss_buffer_desc elements shall be dereferenced, and the resulting
   data shall be included within the hash computation, only for the
   case of gss_buffer_desc elements having non-zero length specifiers.

   (3) If the caller passes the value GSS_C_NO_BINDINGS instead of a
   valid channel binding structure, the Bnd field shall be set to 16
   zero-valued octets.

4.2. Per-Message Tokens

   Two classes of tokens are defined in this section:  "MIC" tokens,
   emitted by calls to GSS_GetMIC() and consumed by calls to
   GSS_VerifyMIC(), "Wrap" tokens, emitted by calls to GSS_Wrap() and
   consumed by calls to GSS_Unwrap().

   The new per-message tokens introduced here do not include the
   generic GSS-API token framing used by the context establishment
   tokens.  These new tokens are designed to be used with newer crypto
   systems that can, for example, have variable-size checksums.

4.2.1. Sequence Number

   To distinguish intentionally-repeated messages from maliciously-
   replayed ones, per-message tokens contain a sequence number field,
   which is a 64 bit integer expressed in big endian order.  After
   sending a GSS_GetMIC() or GSS_Wrap() token, the sender's sequence
   numbers are incremented by one.

4.2.2. Flags Field

   The "Flags" field is a one-octet integer used to indicate a set of
   attributes for the protected message.  For example, one flag is
   allocated as the direction-indicator, thus preventing an adversary
   from sending back the same message in the reverse direction and
   having it accepted.

   The meanings of bits in this field (the least significant bit is bit
   0) are as follows:

        Bit    Name             Description
        0   SentByAcceptor    When set, this flag indicates the sender
                              is the context acceptor.  When not set,
                              it indicates the sender is the context

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           6 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

        1   Sealed            When set in Wrap tokens, this flag
                              indicates confidentiality is provided
                              for.  It SHALL NOT be set in MIC tokens.
        2   AcceptorSubkey    A subkey asserted by the context acceptor
                              is used to protect the message.

   The rest of available bits are reserved for future use and MUST be
   cleared.  The receiver MUST ignore unknown flags.

4.2.3. EC Field

   The "EC" (Extra Count) field is a two-octet integer field expressed
   in big endian order.

   In Wrap tokens with confidentiality, the EC field is used to encode
   the number of octets in the filler, as described in section 4.2.4.

   In Wrap tokens without confidentiality, the EC field is used to
   encode the number of octets in the trailing checksum, as described
   in section 4.2.4.

4.2.4. Encryption and Checksum Operations

   The encryption algorithms defined by the crypto profiles provide for
   integrity protection [KCRYPTO].  Therefore no separate checksum is

   The result of decryption can be longer than the original plaintext
   [KCRYPTO] and the extra trailing octets are called "crypto-system
   garbage".  However, given the size of any plaintext data, one can
   always find the next (possibly larger) size so that, when padding
   the to-be-encrypted text to that size, there will be no crypto-
   system garbage added [KCRYPTO].

   In Wrap tokens that provide for confidentiality, the first 16 octets
   of the Wrap token (the "header", as defined in section 4.2.6), are
   appended to the plaintext data before encryption.  Filler octets can
   be inserted between the plaintext data and the "header", and the
   values and size of the filler octets are chosen by implementations,
   such that there is no crypto-system garbage present after the
   decryption.  The resulting Wrap token is {"header" |
   encrypt(plaintext-data | filler | "header")}, where encrypt() is the
   encryption operation (which provides for integrity protection)
   defined in the crypto profile [KCRYPTO], and the RRC field in the
   to-be-encrypted header contains the hex value 00 00.

   In Wrap tokens that do not provide for confidentiality, the checksum
   is calculated first over the to-be-signed plaintext data, and then
   the first 16 octets of the Wrap token (the "header", as defined in
   section 4.2.6).  Both the EC field and the RRC field in the token
   header are filled with zeroes for the purpose of calculating the
   checksum.  The resulting Wrap token is {"header" | plaintext-data |
   get_mic(plaintext-data | "header")},  where get_mic() is the

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           7 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   checksum operation for the required checksum mechanism of the chosen
   encryption mechanism defined in the crypto profile [KCRYPTO].

   The parameters for the key and the cipher-state in the encrypt() and
   get_mic() operations have been omitted for brevity.

   For MIC tokens, the checksum is first calculated over the to-be-
   signed plaintext data, and then the first 16 octets of the MIC
   token, where the checksum mechanism is the required checksum
   mechanism of the chosen encryption mechanism defined in the crypto
   profile [KCRYPTO].

   The resulting Wrap and MIC tokens bind the data to the token header,
   including the sequence number and the direction indicator.

4.2.5. RRC Field

   The "RRC" (Right Rotation Count) field in Wrap tokens is added to
   allow the data to be encrypted in-place by existing [SSPI]
   applications that do not provide an additional buffer for the
   trailer (the cipher text after the in-place-encrypted data) in
   addition to the buffer for the header (the cipher text before the
   in-place-encrypted data).  The resulting Wrap token in the previous
   section, excluding the first 16 octets of the token header, is
   rotated to the right by "RRC" octets.  The net result is that "RRC"
   octets of trailing octets are moved toward the header.  Consider the
   following as an example of this rotation operation:  Assume that the
   RRC value is 3 and the token before the rotation is {"header" | aa |
   bb | cc | dd | ee | ff | gg | hh}, the token after rotation would be
   {"header" | ff | gg | hh | aa | bb | cc | dd | ee }, where {aa | bb
   | cc |...| hh} is used to indicate the octet sequence.

   The RRC field is expressed as a two-octet integer in big endian

   The rotation count value is chosen by the sender based on
   implementation details, and the receiver MUST be able to interpret
   all possible rotation count values.

4.2.6. Message Layouts

   Per-message tokens start with a two-octet token identifier (TOK_ID)
   field, expressed in big endian order.  These tokens are defined
   separately in subsequent sub-sections. MIC Tokens

   Use of the GSS_GetMIC() call yields a token, separate from the user
   data being protected, which can be used to verify the integrity of
   that data as received.  The token has the following format:

      Octet no     Name       Description
       0..1     TOK_ID     Identification field.  Tokens emitted by

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           8 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

                           GSS_GetMIC() contain the hex value 04 04
                           expressed in big endian order in this field.
       2        Flags      Attributes field, as described in section
       3..7     Filler     Contains five octets of hex value FF.
       8..15    SND_SEQ    Sequence number field in clear text,
                           expressed in big endian order.
       16..last SGN_CKSUM  Checksum of octet 0..15 and the "to-be-
                           signed" data, as described in section 4.2.4.

   The Filler field is included in the checksum calculation for
   simplicity. Wrap Tokens

   Use of the GSS_Wrap() call yields a token, which consists of a
   descriptive header, followed by a body portion that contains either
   the input user data in plaintext concatenated with the checksum, or
   the input user data encrypted.  The GSS_Wrap() token has the
   following format:

      Octet no     Name       Description
       0..1     TOK_ID     Identification field.  Tokens emitted by
                           GSS_Wrap() contain the the hex value 05 04
                           expressed in big endian order in this field.
       2        Flags      Attributes field, as described in section
       3        Filler     Contains the hex value FF.
       4..5     EC         Contains the "extra count" field, in big
                           endian order as described in section 4.2.3.
       6..7     RRC        Contains the "right rotation count" in big
                           endian order, as described in section 4.2.5.
       8..15    SND_SEQ    Sequence number field in clear text,
                           expressed in big endian order.
       16..last Data       Encrypted data for Wrap tokens with
                           confidentiality, or plaintext data followed
                           by the checksum for Wrap tokens without
                           confidentiality, as described in section

4.3. Context Deletion Tokens

   Context deletion tokens are empty in this mechanism.  Both peers to
   a security context invoke GSS_Delete_sec_context() [RFC-2743]
   independently, passing a null output_context_token buffer to
   indicate that no context_token is required.  Implementations of
   GSS_Delete_sec_context() should delete relevant locally-stored
   context information.

4.4. Token Identifier Assignment Considerations

   Token identifiers (TOK_ID) from 0x60 0x00 through 0x60 0xFF
   inclusive are reserved and SHALL NOT be assigned.  Thus by examining

Zhu                         Internet Draft                           9 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   the first two octets of a token, one can tell unambiguously if it is
   wrapped with the generic GSS-API token framing.

5. Parameter Definitions

   This section defines parameter values used by the Kerberos V5 GSS-
   API mechanism.  It defines interface elements in support of
   portability, and assumes use of C language bindings per [RFC-2744].

5.1. Minor Status Codes

   This section recommends common symbolic names for minor_status
   values to be returned by the Kerberos V5 GSS-API mechanism.  Use of
   these definitions will enable independent implementers to enhance
   application portability across different implementations of the
   mechanism defined in this specification.  (In all cases,
   implementations of GSS_Display_status() will enable callers to
   convert minor_status indicators to text representations.)  Each
   implementation should make available, through include files or other
   means, a facility to translate these symbolic names into the
   concrete values which a particular GSS-API implementation uses to
   represent the minor_status values specified in this section.

   It is recognized that this list may grow over time, and that the
   need for additional minor_status codes specific to particular
   implementations may arise.  It is recommended, however, that
   implementations should return a minor_status value as defined on a
   mechanism-wide basis within this section when that code is
   accurately representative of reportable status rather than using a
   separate, implementation-defined code.

5.1.1. Non-Kerberos-specific codes

              /* "No @ in SERVICE-NAME name string" */
              /* "STRING-UID-NAME contains nondigits" */
              /* "UID does not resolve to username" */
              /* "Validation error" */
              /* "Couldn't allocate gss_buffer_t data" */
              /* "Message context invalid" */
              /* "Buffer is the wrong size" */
              /* "Credential usage type is unknown" */
              /* "Unknown quality of protection specified" */

5.1.2. Kerberos-specific-codes

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          10 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

              /* "Client principal in credentials does not match
                 specified name" */
              /* "No key available for specified service principal" */
              /* "No Kerberos ticket-granting ticket available" */
              /* "Authenticator has no subkey" */
              /* "Context is already fully established" */
              /* "Unknown signature type in token" */
              /* "Invalid field length in token" */
              /* "Attempt to use incomplete security context" */

5.2. Buffer Sizes

   All implementations of this specification shall be capable of
   accepting buffers of at least 16K octets as input to GSS_GetMIC(),
   GSS_VerifyMIC(), and GSS_Wrap(), and shall be capable of accepting
   the output_token generated by GSS_Wrap() for a 16K octet input
   buffer as input to GSS_Unwrap().  Support for larger buffer sizes is
   optional but recommended.

6. Backwards Compatibility Considerations

   The new token formats defined in this document will only be
   recognized by new implementations.  To address this, implementations
   can always use the explicit sign or seal algorithm in [RFC-1964]
   when the key type corresponds to "older" enctypes.  An alternative
   approach might be to retry sending the message with the sign or seal
   algorithm explicitly defined as in [RFC-1964].  However this would
   require either the use of a mechanism such as [RFC-2478] to securely
   negotiate the method or the use out of band mechanism to choose
   appropriate mechanism.  For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   new token formats defined in this document SHOULD be used only if
   both peers are known to support the new mechanism during context
   negotiation because of, for example, the use of "new" enctypes.

   GSS_Unwrap() or GSS_Verify_MIC() can process a message token as
   follows: it can look at the first octet of the token header, if it
   is 0x60 then the token must carry the generic GSS-API pseudo ASN.1
   framing, otherwise the first two octets of the token contain the
   TOK_ID that uniquely identify the token message format.

7. Security Considerations

   Under the current mechanism, no negotiation of algorithm types
   occurs, so server-side (acceptor) implementations cannot request
   that clients not use algorithm types not understood by the server.

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          11 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   However, administration of the server's Kerberos data (e.g., the
   service key) has to be done in communication with the KDC, and it is
   from the KDC that the client will request credentials.  The KDC
   could therefore be given the task of limiting session keys for a
   given service to types actually supported by the Kerberos and GSSAPI
   software on the server.

   This does have a drawback for cases where a service principal name
   is used both for GSSAPI-based and non-GSSAPI-based communication
   (most notably the "host" service key), if the GSSAPI implementation
   does not understand (for example) AES [AES-KRB5] but the Kerberos
   implementation does.  It means that AES session keys cannot be
   issued for that service principal, which keeps the protection of
   non-GSSAPI services weaker than necessary.  KDC administrators
   desiring to limit the session key types to support interoperability
   with such GSSAPI implementations should carefully weigh the
   reduction in protection offered by such mechanisms against the
   benefits of interoperability.

8. Acknowledgments

  Ken Raeburn and Nicolas Williams corrected many of our errors in the
  use of generic profiles and were instrumental in the creation of this

  The text for security considerations was contributed by Ken Raeburn.

  Sam Hartman and Ken Raeburn suggested the "floating trailer" idea,
  namely the encoding of the RRC field.

  Sam Hartman and Nicolas Williams recommended the replacing our
  earlier key derivation function for directional keys with different
  key usage numbers for each direction as well as retaining the
  directional bit for maximum compatibility.

  Paul Leach provided numerous suggestions and comments.

  Scott Field, Richard Ward, Dan Simon, and Kevin Damour also provided
  valuable inputs on this memo.

  Jeffrey Hutzelman provided comments on channel bindings and suggested
  many editorial changes.

  Luke Howard provided implementations of this memo for the Heimdal
  code base, and helped inter-operability testing with the Microsoft
  code base, together with Love.  These experiments formed the basis of
  this memo.

  Martin Rex provided suggestions of TOK_ID assignment recommendations
  thus the token tagging in this memo is unambiguous if the token is
  wrapped with the pseudo ASN.1 header.

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          12 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

  This document retains some of the text of RFC-1964 in relevant

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC-2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
   3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC-2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
   Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.

   [RFC-2744] Wray, J., "Generic Security Service API Version 2: C-
   bindings", RFC 2744, January 2000.

   [RFC-1964] Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism",
   RFC 1964, June 1996.

   [KCRYPTO] Raeburn, K., "Encryption and Checksum Specifications for
   Kerberos 5", draft-ietf-krb-wg-crypto-05.txt, June, 2003.  Work in

   [KRBCLAR] Neuman, C., Kohl, J., Ts'o T., Yu T., Hartman, S.,
   Raeburn, K., "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)",
   draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-04.txt, February 2002.
   Work in progress.

   [AES-KRB5] Raeburn, K., "AES Encryption for Kerberos 5", draft-
   raeburn-krb-rijndael-krb-05.txt, June 2003.  Work in progress.

   [RFC-2478] Baize, E., Pinkas D., "The Simple and Protected GSS-API
   Negotiation Mechanism", RFC 2478, December 1998.

9.2. Informative References

   [SSPI] Leach, P., "Security Service Provider Interface", Microsoft
   Developer Network (MSDN), April 2003.

10. Author's Address

   Larry Zhu
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052 - USA
   EMail: LZhu@microsoft.com

   Karthik Jaganathan
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052 - USA

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          13 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

   EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com

   Sam Hartman
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   77 Massachusetts Avenue
   Cambridge, MA 02139 - USA
   Email: hartmans@MIT.EDU

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          14 
                  Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API      October 2003

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Zhu                         Internet Draft                          15

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/