[332] in Kerberos
Re: Terminology
daemon@TELECOM.MIT.EDU (Jerome H. Saltzer)
Mon Mar 14 17:14:10 1988
To: miller%erlang.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM (Steve Miller)
Cc: kerberos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: miller%erlang.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Steve Miller)'s message of 14 Mar 88 14:14
From: Jerome H. Saltzer <Saltzer@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
> So I would just as soon stay with Jerry's suggestion, with the possible
> addition of a qualifier on the #1 type ticket, if someone thinks of a good
> one, such as "raw ticket", "half ticket", etc.
When things get thick enough that it is important to make the
distinction, we could refer to thing #1 (the thing that comes back
from Kerberos) as an "unvalidated ticket", while the thing that goes
to the service is a "validated ticket". (To be completely consistent
one could also rename thing #2 from "authenticator" to "validator",
but I think that step isn't necessary. We simply can say that the
authenticator acts to validate the ticket.)
Jerry
