Re: problem with RPCSEC_GSS specification
Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com> Wed, 07 May 1997 03:36 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa17584; 6 May 97 23:36 EDT
Received: from pad-thai.cam.ov.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00752; 6 May 97 23:36 EDT
Received: (daemon@localhost) by pad-thai.cam.ov.com (8.8.5/) id <CAA09401@pad-thai.cam.ov.com>; Wed, 7 May 1997 02:14:42 GMT
To: Mike Eisler <Michael.Eisler@eng.sun.com>
Cc: oncrpc-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Cc: cat-ietf@mit.edu
Subject: Re: problem with RPCSEC_GSS specification
References: <199705070126.SAA09042@jurassic.eng.sun.com>
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 22:14:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: Michael.Eisler@Eng.Sun.COM's message of Tue, 6 May 1997 18:26:48 -0700
Message-Id: <t53u3kgdo5i.fsf@rover.cygnus.com>
Lines: 25
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Precedence: bulk
Michael.Eisler@Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes: >> >> > Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 17:52:15 -0700 >> > From: mre@jurassic (Mike Eisler) >> > To: oncrpc-wg@sunroof >> > Subject: problem with RPCSEC_GSS specification >> > >> > ONC RPC'ers: >> > >> > While debugging a problem, I noticed that RFC2078, the GSS-API >> > specification, does not define the numerical values for GSS-API major >> > status codes. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). The RPCSEC_GSS >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> That took less than a half hour. :-) Roland Schemers points out that >> the C-bindings GSS-API spec (RFC1509 and >> draft-ietf-cat-gssv2-cbind-04.txt) have defined values. So instead, I >> propose just referencing draft-ietf-cat-gssv2-cbind-04.txt. The right answer is to define them in rfc2078. Although these values never appear on the wire, rfc2078 defines numeric values for other arguments already. Marc
- Re: problem with RPCSEC_GSS specification Marc Horowitz
- Re: problem with RPCSEC_GSS specification John Linn