[3951] in Kerberos-V5-bugs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Hartman via RT)
Fri Feb 21 15:24:16 2003
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Mail-Followup-To: rt@krbdev.mit.edu
Message-Id: <rt-1352-4612.8.63898494261733@krbdev.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <rt-1352@krbdev.mit.edu>
From: "Sam Hartman via RT" <rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu>
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: wyllys.ingersoll@sun.com
cc: krb5-prs@mit.edu
Reply-To: rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu
Errors-To: krb5-bugs-bounces@mit.edu
>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams via RT <rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu> writes:
Nicolas> But even so, I think it makes plenty of sense to allow
Nicolas> the client to send the MIC as soon as the mech it picks
Nicolas> to negotiate for optimistically is ready to do so.
I'd agree with you except that this is fairly clearly prohibited by
section 3.2.2 of the RFC. I suspect SPNEGO predates prot-ready.
_______________________________________________
krb5-bugs mailing list
krb5-bugs@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krb5-bugs
