Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 02:52:22 PM -0400 Jeffrey Altman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: >>> Discussion of protocol issues should go to afs3-standardization. >>> I have copied this message there. >> Agreed. Both lists is fine for now. >>> >>> >>> Please make use of the flags to indicate whether the user is >>> registered and/or should try self-registration, rather than inferring >>> that from the returned ID. I say this for a couple of reasons... >>> >>> [pruned] >>> >>> In fact, I'm beginning to think the result should separately indicate: >>> - the viceID currently used for that client (possibly ANONYMOUSID) >>> - the name currently used for that client (possibly system:anyuser) >>> - the name the client may self-register with (possibly empty) >>> - whether the client is registered >>> - whether the client may self-register >>> >>> >>> Comments? >> We can have two flags: >> >> PR_WAI_IS_REGISTERED 0x0001 >> PR_WAI_MAY_REGISTER 0x0002 >> >> PR_WAI_IS_REGISTERED is set when the viceID specified is assigned to >> that entity and not to a group >> >> PR_WAI_MAY_REGISTER is set when the ptserver determines that there is a >> name that could be registered but which doesn't exist in the database >> AND if such a request was received it could in fact be processed. There >> is no point encouraging the client to attempt to register >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] if the configuration of the server would not permit it. >> >> I think that adding the second name field is a good idea. > > OK, so we return an "effective" ID and name, and a flag that indicates > these belong specificaly to the client. > > And then we have a "potential" name, and a flag that indicates that > registration of that name by this client will probably succeed. > > Yes?
Yes. Jeffrey Altman Secure Endpoints Inc. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
