Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (CATHODE-DARK-SPACE.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.96]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28629; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.9.3) id UAA03663; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #1415] subkey fubar description
References: <rt-1415-5845.5.08336417437@krbdev.mit.edu>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:51:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <rt-1415-5845.5.08336417437@krbdev.mit.edu> ("Sam Hartman via RT"'s message of "Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:51:34 -0400 (EDT)")
Message-Id: <ldvvfx2xeqo.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
RT-Send-Cc: 
X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii
Content-Length: 488

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman via RT <rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu> writes:

Sam> I thought you convinced Ken and I that you only needed two
Sam> subkeys and that all four functions would set both subkeys.

Hm.  Yeah, I could be misremembering.  Having all four functions set
both subkeys would work.  The getlocalsubkey and getremotesubkey
functions won't need changing in that case, though the
{mk,rd}_{priv,safe} functions still probably want to have their key
preferences changed somewhat.