rxgk CombineTokens and enctypes (was Re: [AFS3-std] Re: afs3-rxgk-updates for 03)

[Simon Wilkinson]

On 3 Nov 2012, at 19:28, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Do we want a way for the server to indicate a problem with the =
request?

Perhaps, especially given the problem with aborts.

> A zero-length new_token would indicate failure, but there might be =
some sense in reusing the RXGK_ClientInfo errorcodes here.

In AFSCombineTokens, a zero length new_token has a specific meaning - it =
means "the target endpoint doesn't support rxgk, so you can safely =
fallback to rxkad". I don't think fallback is necessarily what you want =
if there is an error in the negotiation, so I would agree that we
should include an error code here. Of course, this reopens the can of =
worms of assigning meaning to these error codes.

> That said, I don't think that the rxgk-afs printout I have handy =
reflects the quoted text.

This was a change that I made in light of implementation experience. I =
don't think the text I wrote to describe it made it into the draft =
document I sent through to you. I'll dig out the diff and send it on.

Cheers,

Simon.