From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 5 13:09:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E680D37B401 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4834B43F75 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:09:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: from blues.seekingfire.prv (blues.seekingfire.prv [192.168.23.211]) by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81E646 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:09:45 -0600 (CST) Received: (from tillman@localhost) by blues.seekingfire.prv (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h75K9jG14715 for freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:09:45 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:09:45 -0600 From: Tillman To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030805140945.C21076@seekingfire.com> References: <20030805104309.X21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805171153.GC504@FreeBSD.org> <20030805115939.Y21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805132519.B21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805151111.0a0b6dd0.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030805151111.0a0b6dd0.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>; from trhodes@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:11:11PM -0400 X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers Subject: Re: Kerberos in the handbook X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:09:47 -0000 On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:11:11PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:25:19 -0600 > Tillman wrote: > > > > I haven't heard from anyone on this, so I'll proceed on the assumption > > that there isn't. > > It's on our list of 'things to do', the one in gnats. docs/50200? > > Along those lines, is it preferable to cover the base Heimdal, the MIT > > port, or both? > > > > I'm inclined to cover both in terms of the KDC, but only MIT in terms of > > a kerberized server or client as the base heimdal doesn't have a > > complete Kerberos toolset. > > > > Any opinions? > > I think we should just cover the base Heimdal, or perhaps two sections, > one which covers the port and the other would cover the base. How does something like this look for a section layout?: * Background (what is, V vs IV, etc) * Installation of a Heimdal KDC * Kerberizing a server with Heimdal services (telnetd, basically) * Kerberizing a client with Heimdal * Testing & troubleshooting * Differences with the MIT port * Server * Client I'm planning on pulling much of the material in bits n' pieces from documentation I've written for ROSPA[1] and fitting into a Handbook-ish framework. -T 1. http://www.rospa.ca/projects/kerberos/ -- "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stopped thinking." - Renan