Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> writes:

    Nicolas> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:29:11PM -0400, Sam Hartman
    Nicolas> wrote:
    >> ALso, it means you need to specify a stable, extensible
    >> protocol between the shim and the mechanism.  That's
    >> significant work that you avoid by making the ioctl
    >> specification a mechanism implementation matter.

    Nicolas> You're still missing the open SPI + pseudo-mechanism
    Nicolas> aspect of this.  I think we'll have to specify the ioctl
    Nicolas> part of interface.

No, I'm failing to understand why that matters in practice.  Just
because a feature is desirable does not mean it is worthwhile.  I've
explained why specifying the ioctls has significant cost.  Since you
haven't disagreed with that statement I'm assuming you understand it
and agree.

You now need to justify a benefit of the feature request of specifying
the ioctls that justifies the cost.