Re: KDC model and atomicity

>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Hudson <[email protected]> writes:

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

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

Can I get comments on this?

    >> * 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.

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

This was intended to be responsive to a concern raised by Nico supported
by Jeff and myself.
I'll let Nico and Jeff speak and am fine as an individual if the WG
decides not to address this but would prefer it be addressed.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg