+support [cc] -dochelp [bcc] Hi Isaac
Thank you for your question. We created SR 120012821001754 and please leave this info in the subject line to track your issue. An engineer will contact you soon. Hung-Chun Yu Microsoft Protocols Support ________________________________ From: Isaac Boukris <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:30 AM To: Interoperability Documentation Help <[email protected]>; Greg Hudson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarification request on cross-realm RBCD in MS-SFU 3.2.5.2.2 Hi again, On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 1:57 PM Isaac Boukris <[email protected]> wrote: > > When a KDC replies with Service Ticket (MS-SFU 3.2.5.2.2), how does it > determine the reply cname and crealm. > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fopenspecs%2Fwindows_protocols%2Fms-sfu%2Fce6bbf34-0f11-40d6-93d1-165a3afa0223&data=02%7C01%7CHungChun.Yu%40microsoft.com%7C3a83b03cfab04f57ca3a08d7a3f680de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637158151428246386&sdata=MjRHU0UvvE9zuzJqoQGt%2FeQECFo8xwNs9KU9DvuYNuQ%3D&reserved=0 > > Per the above doc, it sounds like it should be the cname and crealm > from the additional-ticket, however in RBCD, when the > additional-ticket is a cross-tgt the cname and cream are of service-1 > and not of the impersonated client. > > In contrast, I've observed that Windows KDC constructs the > impersonated client's principal name from the PAC, and set the reply > cname and crealm to that principal's. However, I can't find any clear > document that reflects it. I've sent this over the weekend, and perhaps got lost. In short, I think MS-SFU 3.2.5.2.2 section was not updated for cross-realm RBCD, as other parts of the document. Please review and assign :)
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
