Re: KDC model and atomicity
Nico Williams <[email protected]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:48:40 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK3OfOh-2qx-Mwym70TLKuX0jm+9oN83mgz5Xx27NdKkQTLA+A@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > Nico> What's wrong with Jeff's proposal? > > With my chair hat on, I don't think we have consensus. Who's against? > I think I see you and Jeff supporting; myself with concerns and don't > think I've seen any other comments expressing support or lack. Sure, let's ask. > With my individual hat on, I'm concerned because it does not promote > interoperability. Not so. It requires that clients implement multiple approaches, but they're all trivial for clients to implement as it's all plain attributes. The servers can which which if any to implement. Interop is guaranteed. > Jeff proposes to have about as many standardized attributes as there > are likely to be implementations in an ideal world, all of them > optional. No, all required for the client to implement, but all optional for the server to implement. Nico -- _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg