[1480] in Kerberos-V5-bugs
Re: Kerberos V5 Telnet compliance with RFC1416
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Fri Jun 16 22:10:46 1995
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 22:10:37 +0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: "John J. Marco" <johnma@sco.COM>
Cc: krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU, johnma@sco.COM, jonco@sco.COM, dceivers@sco.COM
In-Reply-To: John J. Marco's message of Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT),
<9506141535.aa17577@lubyanka.pdev.sco.COM>
From: "John J. Marco" <johnma@sco.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Does the Kerberos V5 telnet program in the Krb5 Beta 5 release
fully adhere to the specification of the telnet authentication
option defined in RFC 1416? If not, then where can I obtain
documentation on the protocol being used?
It is intended to fully adhere to the telnet specifications, and as far
as I know it does so. I haven't personally done a line by line audit of
the code to make sure that it does, however. (Note that it's derived
from the Berkeley Telnet sources, so it's derived from one of the
dominant implementations available on the Net.)
Specifically, I would expect that an RFC 1416 complient telnet
and telnetd would communicate with each other as follows.....
Unfortunately, several telnet programs I have looked at do not
appear to follow the above convention.
If you could specify to me the exact behavior which you are seeing,
which programs are generating them, and why you believe violate they
violate RFC 1416, that would be helpful.
Note that there's a lot the telnet specifications has a fair amount of
slack in it. Just because one implementation is compliant doesn't mean
that simply because another implementation which sends its telnet
options in a slightly different order, or in a slightly different way,
is there for in violation with the specification.
For this reason, it's much more productive for you specify what you
think is wrong with a specification instead of asking me to validate a
particular telnet option sequence as being correct.
- Ted
