[AFS3-std] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Proposal for new ptserver RPC: pr_WhoAmI

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 02:52:22 PM -0400 Jeffrey Altman 
<jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> 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
> user@foo.bar.com 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?