[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK

To: "'ietf-kink@xxxxxxxx'" <ietf-kink@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:00:41 -0500
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:00:25 EST." <>
List-archive: <http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-kink/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-kink.vpnc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-kink-request@vpnc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-kink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

>	3) A standard Kerberized server that doesn't support the
>user-to-user tickets is a lot simpler to implement.

If you don't handle a TGS_REQ, I don't think you could call it "Kerberos";
and from looking at a sample KDC, I don't think a TGS_REQ really adds that
much complexity (compared to how much else you have to implement to
do Kerberos).

--Ken

References:
- alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
  - From: Medvinsky, Sasha (SD-EX)

Prev by Date: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
Next by Date: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
Previous by thread: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
Next by thread: alternative to user-to-user Kerberos in KINK
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread