suggestion for locating master kdc logic

Will Fiveash will.fiveash at
Mon Apr 9 18:11:30 EDT 2012

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:06:26PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> Will, I think you could argue that the change required in Solaris
> Kerberos to match MIT krb5 behavior in this case is a bug fix, not a
> backwards-incompatible interface change requiring a minor release
> vehicle.  If the ON c-team and/or PSARC disagree then you'll have to
> stick to the divergence in behavior -- I don't think you should expect
> MIT to "fix" this, because I don't think MIT should.

I'm not assuming anything; I'm just making a case for changing fall back
behavior in the MIT code base.  If others have sound reasons why this
should not be the case then I will have to deal with this issue in
another way.

> This may be a classic case of release schedule mismatches between
> upstream and downstream.  This is something the upstream should
> generally avoid doing to known, friendly downstream consumers, but
> it's difficult to prevent entirely, particularly when the upstream is
> less of a stickler for
> behavior-that-rises-to-the-level-of-an-interface than PSARC might be.

Yes, that is the rock/hard place we (Solaris krb team) happen to be

Will Fiveash
Oracle Solaris Software Engineer
Sent using mutt, a sweet, text based e-mail app <>

More information about the krbdev mailing list