Vendor comments on plan to remove telnet, ftp and eventually appl/bsd
Darren Reed (Optimation)
darrenr at optimation.com.au
Mon Jul 22 21:12:01 EDT 2002
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans at mit.edu>
> >>>>> "Darren" == Darren Reed (Optimation) <darrenr at optimation.com.au>
> Darren> So far as rlogin/rcp/rsh go, a basic requirement would be
> Darren> that the command line syntax does not change. We have *a
> Darren> lot of* scripts, documents, etc, which explicitly use
> Darren> encrypted sessions.
> OK. I don't know whether we plan on meeting this requirement; I
> rather suspect not. We'll try to keep command line compatibility for
> ftp and telnet, but our assumption is that no one actually wants to
> maintain a Kerberos bsd application set for us to recommend and that
> we'll be dropping that technology as soon as there is a viable
> Of course the advantage of open-source software is that the community
> can write software to fill voids and distribute this software. If
> someone contributed migration scripts we'd certainly consider taking
> them and if we decided against they could be maintained by their
> author as a package for the community to use.
So where do you see the MIT Kerberos distribution going then ?
Just becoming a set of libraries and core utilities (kinit/kdestroy) ?
It would be nice if there were some standard client utilities bundled
with the MIT Kerberos, making it, as a package, instantly useful,
once built and installed.
I understand your dilemma with respect to telnet (and its constantly
evolving protocol), but I do not see the same problem with the BSD
r* programs and would encourage you to consider not dumping them.
More information about the krbdev