directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [Kerberos] PKINIT support
Date Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:14:07 GMT
dunno alex. but this strikes me as a bit strange for you to be  
criticizing Enrique for thinking about adding new features whereas  
for the last month you were too busy adding new features to review a  
pretty simple code cleanup patch.

I'm also a bit unclear exactly what you mean by "I'm just going to  
say no for now".  To me this looks like a proactive veto of code that  
hasn't even been written yet, without a technical justification.  I  
don't quite see how that fits into normal apache procedures.  What am  
I missing?

I thought one of the ways to make an open source project flourish was  
to encourage people to contribute what they want and can contribute.   
I think that telling people their work is not welcome is likely to  
keep the contributor base, well, extremely manageable.

Personally I think this is looks like a nice bit, not that i  
understand any deep details about it, and if my voice meant anything  
i'd encourage Enrique to work on it.  If he wants to write more docs  
than he already has on some other bits he's contributed that would be  
fine with me too, but I usually find that docs are wrong by the time  
they are actually written and available.  I generally find clear code  
is a better bet.

BTW, where are the developer and user guides for the dynamic schem  
stuff?  I'm probably just not looking in the right place but I  
haven't been able to find the docs on how to use this feature.

And finally, what are
which I found in the advanced user guide table of contents?

I hope I'm not burning too many bridges with this email but I can't  
say I have any desire to work on a project that features responses  
like this to proposals for cool new stuff.

david jencks

On Sep 23, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> IMO if you have some time you might want to start work on some  
> developer documentation
> on DNS as well as a user's guide so we can attract more committers  
> while answering user
> questions around DNS.
> Just this week someone asked about this on the users list and all  
> they heard were crickets.
> Emmanuel had to sit there and tell the guy that we cannot support  
> him and its an embarrassment
> for us.  He had to apologize for your actions. That's not cool.
> Although I want to see you make strides on adding new features to  
> Kerberos I think it's a bit irresponsible
> for you to get back into new features without documenting others  
> that you added in the past.
> You just can't do that while you leave the DNS situation in a poor  
> state.  Do you understand
> the point I'm trying to make here?  Do you see some merit in what I  
> am saying from a community
> perspective? I'm trying to get you to understand where we're coming  
> from and not think this is
> at all any means to lessen your value.  We really like the  
> technical things you do but a community
> is not just about the code.
> It's antithetical to OS culture to just drop code or features into  
> some project and leave.  You have
> to take care of the users, the developers that come after you so  
> the project is alive rather than being
> an inanimate piece of code.  By suggesting this new feature  
> addition before taking care of your
> inherent responsibilities to the community clearly shows that  
> you're not thinking about these aspects.
> This is why I'm going to just say no for now.
> Secondly with respect to technical matters how does this impact  
> what we have in Triplesec
> with HOTP?  Is this another SAM type for the kerberos server which  
> uses the class loading
> scheme we already have in place for verifiers?
> Alex
> On 9/22/07, Enrique Rodriguez <> wrote:
> Hi, Directory developers,
> I have a window with no major deadlines for the next few weeks, so I
> looked into adding 1 new Kerberos feature for the next release.  After
> doing some "due diligence," ie reading the relevant specs and
> reviewing what support I need from the JDK and various libraries, I am
> highly confident I can add PKINIT support for 1.5.2.
> PKINIT is a pre-authentication type for Kerberos (detailed in RFC
> 4556).  For those not familiar, PKINIT can be quickly summarized as
> "smartcard authentication for Kerberos, replacing the
> username/password."  PKINIT can also work with a local keypair, so
> there isn't a requirement for hardware like an actual smartcard,
> though that is the intended deployment scenario.
> Since this is only a new pre-authentication verifier, I would rather
> not branch and instead develop this, at first, in my sandbox.  I have
> time starting this weekend, so I'd like to start to get code
> committed, to back the code up.
> Enrique

View raw message