Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:09:45 -0600 From: Tillman <tillman@seekingfire.com> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Kerberos in the handbook Message-ID: <20030805140945.C21076@seekingfire.com> In-Reply-To: <20030805151111.0a0b6dd0.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>; from trhodes@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:11:11PM -0400 References: <20030805104309.X21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805171153.GC504@FreeBSD.org> <20030805115939.Y21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805132519.B21076@seekingfire.com> <20030805151111.0a0b6dd0.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:11:11PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:25:19 -0600 > Tillman <tillman@seekingfire.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030805140945.C21076>