Re: Open issues on draft-ietf-krb-wg-general-pac

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

Because it's getting to be time to accept that realms are named after
domains?  :)  But, sure, the right thing is to say "realm".

> 6)  Home directories and URIs
>
> Will require discussion on the list.

We had one today on the concall.

Simo seemed to think that the URIs would be for all the possible
locations of a user's home directory on potentially thousands of
servers.  But that's not the case, at least I can't think of any case
where one would want that, and IIUC neither could Jeff H.

My point is that a POSIX path can be a URI (/net/server/path) or not,
but if not and there's no local homedir then we'll need... a federated
automount map?  No, that's too much complexity.  What Jeff and I are
asking for would be optional: a sequence of zero, one, or more URIs,
but probably never more than one per relevant URI scheme.  Even if
Simo himself has no use for this Jeff and I believe we do.

Nico
--
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg