Sam, Thankyou. We would love to comply and can fully understand why changes made by the previous CyberSafe company may have caused problems. I have been trying for many months to open discussions along these lines with somebody at MIT, but have not been successful yet. Can you let me know your position/role and whether I should use you as a point of contact to coordinate such matters ?
Kind Regards, Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 13 May 2002 07:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PKINIT This post, more than most is my individual opinion, and is certainly not the opinion of MIT or the MIT Kerberos team. >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Alsop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tim> The CyberSafe TrustBroker products have PKINIT (draft 5) Tim> support and we are currently in the process of developing Tim> draft 16 (from RFC1510bis) into our KDC. Please, before adopting anything from draft 16, make sure that the working group hasn't already developed a consensus to do something different. CyberSafe has a long tradition of picking the worst parts of ongoing work both from the MIT release and if memory serves from IETF drafts, implementing them and then causing everyone to regret the result. The biggest example is of course 3des-cbc-md5, although there have certainly been others. It would be great to see CyberSafe work closer with the rest of the Kerberos community rather than be a thorn in its side. --Sam ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
