<!--

   $Id: module.sgml-template,v 1.1.1.1 2001/04/29 04:16:54 hartmans Exp $
   
   This template file was written by Andrew G. Morgan
					<morgan@kernel.org>

[
	Text that should be deleted/replaced, is enclosed within 
		'[' .. ']'
	marks. For example, this text should be deleted!
]

-->

<sect1> [*Familiar full name of module*, eg. The "allow all" module.]

<sect2>Synopsis

<p>
<descrip>

<tag><bf>Module Name:</bf></tag>
[
	insert the name of the module

	Blank is not permitted.
]

<tag><bf>Author[s]:</bf></tag>

[
	Insert author names here

	Blank is not permitted. If in doubt, put "unknown" if the
	author wishes to remain anonymous, put "anonymous".
]

<tag><bf>Maintainer:</bf></tag>
	
[
	Insert names and date-begun of most recent maintainer.
]

<tag><bf>Management groups provided:</bf></tag>

[
	list the subset of four management groups supported by the
	module. Choose from: account; authentication; password;
	session.

	Blank entries are not permitted. Explicitly list all of the
	management groups. In the future more may be added to libpam!
]

<tag><bf>Cryptographically sensitive:</bf></tag>

[
	Indicate whether this module contains code that can perform
	reversible (strong) encryption. This field is primarily to
	ensure that people redistributing it are not unwittingly
	breaking laws...

	Modules may also require the presence of some local library
	that performs the necessary encryption via some standard API.
	In this case "uses API" can be included in this field. The
	library in question should be added to the system requirements
	below.

	Blank = no cryptography is used by module.
]
	
<tag><bf>Security rating:</bf></tag>

[
	Initially, this field should be left blank. If someone takes
	it upon themselves to test the strength of the module, it can
	later be filled.

	Blank = unknown.
]

<tag><bf>Clean code base:</bf></tag>

[
	This will probably be filled by the libpam maintainer.
	It can be considered to be a public humiliation list. :*)

	I am of the opinion that "gcc -with_all_those_flags" is
	trying to tell us something about whether the program
	works as intended. Since there is currently no Security
	evaluation procedure for modules IMHO this is not a
	completely unreasonable indication (a lower bound anyway)
	of the reliability of a module.

	This field would indicate the number and flavor of
	warnings that gcc barfs up when trying to compile the
	module as part of the tree. Is this too tyrannical?

	Blank = Linux-PAM maintainer has not tested it :)
]

<tag><bf>System dependencies:</bf></tag>

[
	here we list config files, dynamic libraries needed, system
	resources, kernel options.. etc.

	Blank = nothing more than libc required.
]

<tag><bf>Network aware:</bf></tag>

[
	Does the module base its behavior on probing a network
	connection? Does it expect to be protected by the
	application?

	Blank = Ignorance of network.
]

</descrip>

<sect2>Overview of module

[
	some text describing the intended actions of the module
	general comments mainly (specifics in sections
	below).
]

[

	[ now we have a <sect2> level subsection for each of the
	  management groups. Include as many as there are groups
	  listed above in the synopsis ]

<sect2>[ Account | Authentication | Password | Session ] component

<p>
<descrip>

<tag><bf>Recognized arguments:</bf></tag>

[
	List the supported arguments (leave their description for the
	description below.

	Blank = no arguments are read and nothing is logged to syslog
		about any arguments that are passed. Note, this
		behavior is contrary to the RFC!
]

<tag><bf>Description:</bf></tag>

[
	This component of the module performs the task of ...
]

<tag><bf>Examples/suggested usage:</bf></tag>

[
	Here we list some doos and don'ts for this module.
]

</descrip>

<!--
End of sgml insert for this module.
-->
