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

[Derek Atkins <warlord@xxxxxxx>]

"Medvinsky, Sasha (SD-EX)" <SMedvinsky@xxxxxx> writes:

> Also, the client should really have an Access Control List of the servers it
> wants to talk to and would not normally respond to a request from a server
> it doesn't know about.  Even if a client did respond to any such server -
> the KDC has only a limited number of them in its database.

This doesn't make sense in the KINK framework.  KINK is meant as a
peer-to-peer protocol.  You cannot expect a KINK Peer to necessarily
know what other peers to expect to talk to it.  I think you are
applying PacketCable architecture requirements to KINK, in a way that
those requirements do not apply.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/      PP-ASEL      N1NWH
       warlord@xxxxxxx                        PGP key available