> On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 08:53:55PM +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: > > Am 2014-08-03 um 11:27 schrieb Dan Fandrich: > > >On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 10:50:21AM +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: > > >>Am 2014-08-03 um 10:27 schrieb Dan Fandrich: > > >>>On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 02:18:29PM +0000, Michael Osipov wrote: > > >>>>@@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ FOOTNOTES > > >>>> *1 = requires OpenSSL, GnuTLS, NSS, yassl, axTLS, PolarSSL, WinSSL > > >>>> (native > > >>>> Windows), Secure Transport (native iOS/OS X) or qssl (native > > >>>> IBM i) > > >>>> *2 = requires OpenLDAP > > >>>>- *3 = requires a GSSAPI-compliant library, such as Heimdal or similar > > >>>>+ *3 = requires a GSS-API implementation, such as Heimdal, MIT > > >>>>Kerberos or > > >>>>+ SSPI (native Windows) > > >>>> *4 = requires nghttp2 and possibly a recent TLS library > > >>>> *5 = requires a krb4 library, such as the MIT one or similar > > >>>> *6 = requires c-ares > > >>> > > >>>Minor nit on this one—this implies that SSPI provides a GSS-API > > >>>implementation. > > >>>This might be slightly clearer: > > >>> > > >>>+ *3 = requires a GSS-API implementation such as Heimdal or MIT > > >>>Kerberos, or > > >>>+ SSPI (native Windows) > > >> > > >>Infact, SSPI is a proprietary GSS-API implemenation but I do > > >>understand what you are referring to. I have trouble phrasing this in > > >>a unambigious way. > > But if SSPI provides an GSS-API implementation, why doesn't ftp.c use it? > If SSPI provides the same API as as MIT/Heimdal, there would be no reason to > avoid using it there. Where is my understanding going wrong?
Your understanding is correct, but you aren't aware of the details. SSPI serves the same purpose as GSS-API but Microsoft did choose a completely different approach in a non-compatible API/ABI when this emerged in Windows 2000. So you always need two code paths and no one did that for FTP. THIS IS Microsoft. > > >>Is this better: requires a GSS-API implementation (Unix-like OS) such > > >>as Heimdal or MIT Kerberos, or SSPI (native Windows) > > >> > > >>In general, those who know that SPNEGO is, will know the difference > > >>between GSS-API and SSPI, IMHO. > > >> > > >>How would you rephrase that? > > > > > >I'm no expert on these differences, but I note that the Kerberos code for > > >FTP, IMAP, POP3, SMTP is disabled if SSPI is in use. > > > > Except FTP none of those SASL-aware protocols use any GSS mechanism in curl. > > Ah, I see it now. Those protocols detect a GSS-API request but there's no > actual code to perform it. Yes exactly, the server advertises all supported SASL mechs, e.g., LOGIN GSSAPI, EXTERNAL and you SASL client is free to choose one of them. > > >If SSPI truly provided > > >a GSS-API implementation, then I would expect this GSS-API code to be > > >enabled. > > >As *3 seems to conflate GSS-API and SPNEGO requirements, perhaps it should > > >be > > >split into two line items in the spirit of clarified documentation. > > > > What about: > > > > *3 = requires a GSS-API implementation (Heimdal, MIT Kerberos) or > > SSPI (native Windows) > > This still isn't accurate in the case of FTP, since FTP won't support Kerberos > with SSPI. You are right. I will introduce another footnote for FTP and Kerberos 5 support. Is that acceptable? Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
