Summary of standard Kerberos service names

John Hascall john at
Sun Feb 29 08:05:06 EST 2004

> >>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at> writes:
>     Jeffrey> John Hascall wrote:
>     >> Or, are we just wishing V4 goes away... :)
>     >> 
>     Jeffrey> I'm wishing V4 goes away.  I think we should do
>     Jeffrey> everything possible to make that happen.

> I think this is close to MIT's official position.  We are not doing
> any new development on krb4 except to remove imp/implementations of
> krb4.  That means you should expect us to do work to remove KFW's
> implementation of krb4 in favor of the one in the krb5 tree, just as
> we did for KFM.  Some day you may see us do development to remove that
> implementation of krb4.  I hope for that day.

> We are still supporting krb4 in terms of maintinance.  We don't want
> to make it easier to use; we don't want better krb4 integration.  But
> we do want to fix problems especially security problems.

> I don't know we have a position on how much effort we would go to in
> order to evaluate external patches that add features or make krb4
> easier to use.

   All very understandable.  I would point out that the
   reason I had to patch this code (either my way or to
   patch the compiled-in table each time) was to make
   that step in our conversion from V4 to V5 work.


More information about the krbdev mailing list