Re: password policy: generic features
Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Howard Chu wrote: > Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> The latest I-D contains an account idling feature. This is yet another >> feature which is useful regardless of the mechanism being used for >> authentication. >> >> At present, I favor separating such features into a separate "account >> policy" specification. However in absence of an I-D actually detailing an >> "account policy" this note can be viewed as simply placing my view on the >> public record. Or maybe just rework this specification to be an "account >> policy" specification with "password extensions". :-) > > I was just going to ask if that's where you were headed. Haven't thought too much about direction. Just making comments as I re-implement this stuff, and thinking a bit about dealing with some long standing 'account policy' related feature requests. > Is this "account" policy, or perhaps "authentication policy"? Well, some of the facilities I'm thinking might be part of such a specification are about authorization not authentication, such as general account locking. > It seems that broadening the title may be a good idea; splitting the spec may be harder because the two are interdependent. Some things might do better with less interdependence... but that doesn't necessarily require splitting the specification. -- Kurt