Re: Discussion about Cancel-Lock support

Julien ÉLIE <[email protected]> writes:

> Having 4 parameters may appear to be a bad idea (though I initially had it
> in mind).  Your suggestion of only 2 makes it clearer I think. During key
> rotation, both hashes are sent and verified.  Simply.

> cancels {
>     canlockuser: [ password anotherpassword ]
>     canlockadmin: [ adminpassword anotheradminpassword ]
> }

> seems simpler over all.

Yeah, I agree.  Unless there's a strong reason to not send the hash for
the key being retired (and I'm not seeing one), I think the above is
simpler.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
_______________________________________________
inn-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers