> Actually, I recall some messages [two are excerpted below] exchanged about
> a year ago discussing real [i.e. technical] issues vis-a-vis kaserver and
> (kadmin?); the pluses were not all on the side of kadmin. My recollection
> is that some kind of concensus was reached that it is easier/better? to
> use MIT clients with kaserver than to use AFS with MIT kerberos and some
> program(s) to support this were made available via grand.central.org.
We used MIT/DECathena kerberos because we were (in theory) primarily a
DECathena site rather than an AFS site, and we now have a largish
database that we'd have to move over to kaserver if we wanted to change.
I have every reason to believe that MIT clients would be happy to use
kaserver, and as long as we could log in via an AFS aware xdm, I'd be
quite happy to junk kerberos. AFS 3.2 included MIT Kerberos aware
binaries that leave ticket files in the right place, but I've not
looked at them, cos I know I can't use them.
The "pluses" of kadmin are non-existant. It stinks.
> Appologies in advance if I've taken these excerpts too far out of context.
No, you haven't.
Peter
