From owner-cvs-all Wed Nov 13 6: 2:18 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E1C37B401; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C013D43E75; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:02:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id gADE1XOo089847; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:01:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:01:32 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Doug Rabson Cc: Wilko Bulte , "David E. O'Brien" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf src/libexec Makefile In-Reply-To: <200211130932.08532.dfr@nlsystems.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > > [DAIVD O'BRIEN's OPINION] > > > > Head off what I think is an abuse of the TRB, and disable > > > > lukemftpd. > > > > > > The TRB has nothing to do with the fate of lukemftpd and we have > > > not been discussing it. Policy decisions (which ftpd to use, which > > > > rwatson suggested het wanted to ask the TRB > > I missed that. Probably because I sent e-mail to David saying that I planned to take this issue to the TRB for resolution, since we apparently had a technical disagreement: I believe that FTP daemons shipped as part of the base system are feature-incomplete if they claim to support authentication and accounts, yet don't support our stand authentication and account management framework, and he doesn't believe that. > > > authentication framework to use) are probably not part of the TRB's > > > > Why not? > > Which ftpd to use isn't a technical decision. Presumably both versions > work (for some value of the word 'work'). Which authentication framework > to use is clear: we use PAM for authentication services. What is left? Sounds reasonable to me. I ended up not sending out the e-mail to trb@ yesterday afternoon because of David's backout; from a purely technical perspective, this suffices to address the list of concerns I had, although it's perhaps not the most ideal outcome of the set of possible results I would have considered acceptable. > > > > Because its so trivial that everyone can have an opinion on it of > course. My concern, and reason for potentially dropping this on the TRB, was that there appeared to be a technical viewpoint that it was not necessary to implement the "standard" system authentication and account management services, and that this would be considered sufficient reason not to implement them. If I had sent the request to the TRB, the result I would have been looking for would either be (a) that the interfaces must be implemented if we ship a service, or (b) we do not have, and will not have, standard authentication and account management interfaces (and as such there is no obligation for committers introducing new services that might uses those interfaces to implement support for them). Which seems on-target for a TRB discussion. I did not intend to raise the issue of which FTP daemon was the One True FTP Daemon, although one potential result of the discussion might be that we do permit a non-compliant daemon in the system if appropriately signposted, in which case we'd have Suppported daemons, and Unsupported daemons. In any case, this is speculation, since thus far it hasn't been sent to the TRB. :-) Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message