[16550] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Should 6838 (renew broken) be a 1.9 blocker?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Yu)
Mon Dec 13 14:42:40 2010
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:42:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <ldv62v1338l.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> (Tom Yu's message of
"Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:13:46 -0500")
Message-ID: <ldvlj3tcvdg.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
>> The renewal behavior in 1.9 has broken with regard to 1.6 and 1.7 and
>> probably 1.8 although I cannot be entirely sure. I at least find this a
>> significant annoyance and regression. Should this be a blocker or not?
>
> Is this behavior change occurring on the KDC side or the client side?
> If we can quickly determine that it was broken in 1.8, I wouldn't
> necessarily classify it as a blocker.
I confirmed that 1.8 isn't broken in this way.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
