🚀 go-pugleaf

> I would like to stress that the Kerberos people have a lot of
> experience to offer the standards activities. I would also like to
> stress that NO ONE should be niave about submitting an existing system
> and expecting it to be accepted as a standard without change.

It is too bad that the "standards" efforts going on in the
communications area are not codifying tried-and-true experience --
which I assert is the proper and correct role of "standards" activity.
Instead it seems that the so-called standards groups insist on
performing reasearch.

What is wrong with "standardizing" Kerberos?  A standard only provides
a clear statement of the workings and interfaces of a mechanism -- it
is not an endorsement that it is the best way to solve a problem.  If
two people then chose to use it, they then have a common frame of
refererence.  And they will be able to get on with whatever larger job
they have at hand.

Again, I believe that the "standards" groups are suffering from a very
serious, and very expensive case of "not invented here".

				--karl--