Re: KDC model and atomicity

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> writes:




Given that, a minimalist approach would be to:

Mark 4.1.1.5 through 4.1.1.8 as OPTIONAL.

* Add a note to 4.1.1.4 indicating that schemas MUST have a mechanism
  for re-enabling a principal that has been disabled through operational
  mechanisms such as account lock out.



Rationale: Nothing in 4.1.1.5-8 actually talks about account lock
out. This discussion has actually made it clear that these attributes
are kind of useless for account lock out mechanisms.  We could remove
them; I don't object to that, but doing so is unnecessary given anything
in this discussion.  A schema might decide they are useless or too hard
to implement.

Specifying how you re-enable a principal is tricky and schema-dependent
so we should leave it to schemas but mandate that it must be possible.

I'm not particularly attached to this proposal. It's simply intended to
be something that minimally changes the document and responds to
comments made here. I certainly have no objection to it, but would be
happy with other options to.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg