MEMORY keytabs - how should they be destroyed?

[Jeffrey Altman]

Sam Hartman wrote:
> Ok.  Jeff, you should go forward and implement the destroy function.
> I would not recommend pulling up krb5_kt_new to 1.6 but you can if you
> think OpenAFS will need it.
>
> Note to Jeff, Jeff and Love.  In the future, comments would be much
> more usefulyou explain why you believe something rather than just
> making  assertions.

Sam:

I will implement the destroy function.  I think that OpenAFS could make
use of krb5_kt_new but I do not believe that it is required.

I tried to provide an explanation for krb5_kt_destroy within 5411 and in
the initial e-mails that started this discussion.  I didn't think a
justification for krb5_kt_new was required since it was derived from a
need that you had identified as part of your recommendation for the
krb5_kt_new_memory() function.

If I am not making a clear argument, please point out what you believe
is unclear and I will attempt to clarify.

I do agree that dialogs that take place via e-mail over long periods of
time are extremely hard to follow and do often require going back to
several days of e-mails to understand the context for the statements.

Jeffrey Altman

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3355 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/attachments/20070125/a47f62a3/attachment.bin