MEMORY keytabs - how should they be destroyed?
jaltman at secure-endpoints.com
Thu Jan 25 17:36:59 EST 2007
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.
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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3355 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/attachments/20070125/a47f62a3/attachment.bin
More information about the krbdev