[1342] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: V4 kadmin server
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Thu Jun 20 12:46:14 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:45:59 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: "Barry Jaspan" <bjaspan@MIT.EDU>
Cc: krbdev@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Barry Jaspan's message of Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:16:23 -0400,
<9606201616.AA06536@DUN-DUN-NOODLES.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:16:23 -0400
From: "Barry Jaspan" <bjaspan@MIT.EDU>
Basically, I argued that while MIT needs a fully functional V4 compat
server for the time being, the rest of the world probably doesn't---a
V4 change-password server will suffice, and in any case in the
interest of simplifying the Kerberos distribution we want to provide
as little redundant code as possible. Therefore, I suggested that we
remove the current V4 compat server from the public release and that
MIT just maintain it locally for its own use, and that we replace it
in the public release with the kadm5 version of the V4 compat server
that (currently) only supports password changing.
This has a number of disadvantages, including making much more of a pain
for us at MIT to maintain the old V4 compat server. It also means that
we at MIT still have to maintain two parallel V4 compat server --- one
which we will actually be using, and another one, less functional one
which we will give to the outside world. By defintion this must make
our testing responsibilities more difficult or more likely we'll end up
not testing both servers as well as if we only had one V4 compat server.
Barry, you said that it wouldn't be very hard to add the extra features
--- how long would it take for you to just add them yourself? If you're
almost done with the rest of the OV admin server work, I'd argue that
you should just finish the job and add the full V4 compatibility server,
instead of leaving this as a "future project".
That way we can rip out the old V4 compat server and know that we've
done a complete, finished job.
- Ted
