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

Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI

To: Love <lha@stacken.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 16:07:12 -0400
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu, heimdal-discuss@sics.se, lukeh@PADL.COM
In-Reply-To: <20040503194208.GW9637@binky.central.sun.com> (NicolasWilliams's message of "Mon, 3 May 2004 14:42:09 -0500")
References: <20040428201406.02F2D151D5C@konishi-polis.mit.edu><ampt9pswov.fsf@nutcracker.stacken.kth.se><20040430141457.GI22519@binky.central.sun.com><tslwu3tigb2.fsf@konishi-polis.mit.edu><am4qqxqqrc.fsf@nutcracker.stacken.kth.se><tslad0piazp.fsf@konishi-polis.mit.edu><20040503194208.GW9637@binky.central.sun.com>
Sender: owner-heimdal-discuss@sics.se
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> writes:

    Nicolas> RFC2744 speaks to this issue.  While it doesn't specify
    Nicolas> an ABI it does encourage implementors to specify one.


Yes.  Within an implementation you will have an ABI.

I know of no platform that has standardized an ABI across GSSAPI
implementations on that platform.

There may be cases where it happens to work and some applications
(Sap) rely on this.

--Sam

References:
- Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
  - From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
- Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
  - From: Love <lha@stacken.kth.se>
- Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
  - From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
Next by Date: Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
Prev by thread: Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
Next by thread: Re: Login prompt when starting services after FreeBSD port install
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread