On Feb 6, 2008 3:09 AM, Lars Noodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please. There is enough bs here without intentionally piling it on. > Assuming a positive aspect to that, either you're confused about the > meaning of word 'based' or unfamiliar with AD. > > AD is *not* Kerberos nor is it LDAP. AD may well be inspired by LDAP and > Kerberos and DNS, but go back and read up on it. The > added/missing/changed parts prevent or, at best, hinder > interoperability. A tool that does not conform to the > specification is, guess what, not a standard. >
I think you haven't been following the story. They screwed with one unused field and refuse to release the information for interoperability. However, the kerberos team told them - if the information is not released, they'll go ahead and define the field, and then Microsoft's kerberos implementation will be out of spec. Microsoft gave that a thought, and then grudgingly said, ok, here's the info. So, while they tried to piss on folks, as it stands, it is quite standard. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
