Re: Question: Prefer to block on draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model
Nico Williams <[email protected]> Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:22:12 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK3OfOgWoH7D9sy4cNAHSqX-znqYZ_Vq_VPGxa7s83jSqwfHMA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Leif Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd be OK with adding a locked attribute. > > I'm ok removing them or making them optional. I believe that > introducing locking will entail a substantial rewrite of the > spec which I think is not worth the effort at this point. Maybe > next revision! I'm talking about a locked attribute with no special semantics to read nor write. It'd be deleting the principal to lock and re-creating the principal to unlock, say, or deleting its keys and re-creating them, or setting a disallow-tix flag, only, of course, simpler than that. Speaking of which, I don't see that MIT krb5 attribute in the I-D (disallow-tix). Nico -- _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg