Hi!
Just curious: What happened to the "Kerberos ticket extensions
draft-ietf-krb-wg-ticket-extensions-00" proposal (see
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ticket-extensions-00.html), e.g. was
there ever any further work on it ?
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o)
Hello,
I am looking into GSS-API as a protection mechanism for SCTP connections. SCTP
connects multiple independent streams at once, and can decide on in-order or
out-of-order delivery on a per-frame basis. SCTP has reliable delivery by
default.
I found that the Kerberos mechanism for GSS-AP
*blush*
I solved my own question!
> I found that the Kerberos mechanism for GSS-API includes a sequence number
> that is incremented with each wrapped or MIC’d message. I assume that the
> receiving side would verify that sequence number, and drop any thing too old,
> and perhaps also anythin
On 10/10/2014 09:50 AM, Rick van Rein wrote:
> I found GSS_C_SEQUENCE_FLAG defined in RFC 1509, as a general flag for
> GSS-API mechanisms. And, there is an alternative flag GSS_C_REPLAY_FLAG that
> is also available in the Kerberos mapping of GSS-API. So the answer appears
> to be “yes, you c
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Roland Mainz wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> Just curious: What happened to the "Kerberos ticket extensions
> draft-ietf-krb-wg-ticket-extensions-00" proposal (see
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ticket-extensions-00.html),
> e.g. was there ever any further work on it
