[4792] in Kerberos
Re: more k5 complaints
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel G. Pouzzner)
Tue Mar 14 11:15:19 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 10:53:08 -0500
From: "Daniel G. Pouzzner" <douzzer@ladyday.brain.ai.mit.edu>
To: schwartz@roke.cse.psu.edu
Cc: kerberos@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "14 Mar 1995 04:32:08 GMT."
<SCHWARTZ.95Mar13233208@roke.cse.psu.edu>
I agree whole-heartedly with your estimation that k5's flab has not
been justified with a concomitant qualitative increase in
functionality. My impression is that the usual version inflation,
combined with support for isode and gssapi, plus the inevitable krb524
compatibility, plus some minor increases in functionality, have
rendered Kerberos 5 as bulky and obscure as everything else out there
(AFS and X come to mind). This is unfortunate. If k5 were giving us
assymmetric session key negotiation then I would unhesitatingly have
deployed k5 in my lab already, but as it is I find a conversion
difficult to justify.
sincerely,
Daniel Pouzzner
