Re: KDC model and atomicity

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/22/2012 06:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Nico" == Nico Williams <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> Nico> At most?  As long as it isn't "at least".
> 
>>> Same deal with timestamp of last 
>>> successful/unsuccessful/attempt.
> 
> <hat role="individual"> I'm actually quite uncomfortable 
> standardizing three sets of semantics here. That doesn't provide a 
> very reasonable management experience. Given the number of KDC 
> implementations out there, it effectively means that there will be 
> no interoperability. If we can't narrow beyond that, why not drop 
> the feature  as something where we cannot agree on standard 
> behavior?


I agree. It seems clear to me (as an editor) that we don't have clear
consensus to add this feature.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/mxJwACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZncT/wCgqYxcAC5XiX1EaNEQF/vddmAG
QKYAmweR7e4GTLfAOsqcqmfZJ9dfX413
=Lq7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg