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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >
