PSARC 2006/283 Certificate & PKCS#11 PAM, module

[Nicolas Williams]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:48PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >The project team has been playing fetch-a-rock for too long.  The 
> >final specs have been submitted, I think Darren is planning on putting 
> >them in the case dir very soon.   This case should be approved so the 
> >team can move ahead.
> 
> As I indicated earlier, if the pressure is one particular customer, why 
> not send binary relief to that one customer, while the project team 
> works to fully address concerns to make this bit of software up to the 
> same quality (and I'm not just talking about code quality/robustness 
> here -- but also supporting documentation, adherence to Big Rules, and 
> fit-and-finish issues of the kind we normally require for Sun-developed 
> software.

Because then they can't get support through normal channels (e.g., by
filing a bug via opensolaris.org).

I don't see the problem with having different levels of support for
native features, well-integrated and not-so-well-integrated third party
features.  The fact that this case came to the ARC says noone is
avoiding the SDF, so talk of lower review requirements seems
unwarranted.  OTOH, I think the i-team is asking for lower architectural
requirements, as many a FOSS integration case seem to lately.

I think a warning in the manpage about volatility of the interfaces and
lack of complete integration should suffice.  But when the project team
comes back to complete the pam_smartcard replacement then all these
issues should be addressed (i.e., I agree with Gary's comments).

Nico
--