Open issues on draft-ietf-krb-wg-general-pac
Sam Hartman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi. Doing a chair review of the discussion here are issued opened prior to the document split that have as far as I can tell not been closed. Would it be valuable to start using an issue tracker at this point? 1) behavior of KDC and service Leif raised the issue that semantics are not sufficiently well specified. 2) Semantics around domain uuids This is a specific area where the semantics are insufficient. I think this has been renamed to DUUID. * renaming of domains Are there any semantics KDCS and services must follow? I.E. MUST a KDC keep the DUUID constant if it refers to the same domain and no rename has happened? (presumably yes) MUST/SHOULD/MAY the KDC keep the DUUID constant when a realm is renamed if it corresponds to the same realm? What semantics need a service implement? MUST/SHOULD a service map based on DUUID rather than realm name? * What controls domains asserting the right uuid? Nico and I think Greg raised issues about filtering DUUIDs and validating them. 4) Why is it domain not realm? Some of this has been fixed in the recent draft, but we should have a better understanding of where we 5) Where is the trust model specified We need a clear discussion of the trust model for both documents. 6) Home directories and URIs Will require discussion on the list. _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg