Re: KDC model and atomicity

On 06/26/2012 06:57 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Mark 4.1.1.5 through 4.1.1.8 as OPTIONAL.

I would rather remove them than have text which we expect most people to
ignore.  But if there isn't consensus for that, I'm minimally okay with
marking them 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.

Do we need to be prescriptive about this here?  I don't understand this
draft to be a general requirements document for an admin protocol.  If
we still believe we want an unlock operation when we're writing a
schema, we can put it in.

At the moment I'm against this part.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg