Subject: RPCSEC_GSS = 6

From: Peter Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:17:30 +0200 (CEST)

The non-existent definition of RPCSEC_GSS in the .x file causes some
problems in pynfs.  Currently, I'm hand-patching the .x file before
compilation and adds:

enum auth_flavor {
    RPCSEC_GSS = 6      /* RPCSEC_GSS security flavor */
};

What about adding this to the real .x file, would that cause any trouble
for others?  Or should the v4 .x depend on the RPCSEC_GSS .x (if something
like that exists) ?

-- 
/Peter Åstrand <[email-masked]>

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 12:25:05 -0500

> for others?  Or should the v4 .x depend on the RPCSEC_GSS .x (if something

I would have to hand patch the .x to remove the definition.

The auth flavor is part of the RPC authentication mechanisms and
should be defined there (the .x references the RFC where the
definition occurs).  Most implementations will have separate
definitions for the RPC authentiation flavors and that is where it
should occur.

-- 
Spencer