At 11:12 5-17-01, Schmehl, Paul wrote:
>The iPlanet URL is nothing but vendor hype. I know this to be a fact,
>because in the fourth paragraph it reads,
>"In truth, Microsoft's .Net should be renamed .NOT, because it's flat

         You know something about their standards compliance as "a fact"
because there was a little name calling between competing vendors? Please,
that's even worse logic than what you're attacking.

>entire "controversy" surrounding MS's implementation of Kerberos has to
>do with "extra" data that is stored in a specific header field.
>Microsoft's use of this header field is *standards compliant* as can be
>verified by simply reading the RFC.

         As I recall, the problem with MS's kerberos implementation wasn't
it's use of the optional header field, but that it doesn't work with
systems that don't include that *optional* field. In which case it would
*not* be compliant because it would be *requiring* an *optional*
field. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't pretend to be an expert on
kerberos or MS.

>Knowing this, I don't even need to check the other standards to see if
>MS is compliant with them.

         Do I even need to comment on how faulty that logic is??

Tom

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]