RE: OpenLDAP 2.1 Released

["Booker C. Bense" <bbense@networking.stanford.edu>]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

> At 01:06 AM 2002-06-14, Howard Chu wrote:
> >I don't know why anyone would use it. I think it may be a holdover from
> >Kerberos IV support in the original UMich distribution, before SASL support
> >existed. At any rate, it has always been a bad idea.
>
> LDAPv2 Kerberos bind (kbind) support is a hold-over from U-Mich
> LDAP. {KERBEROS} is a OpenLDAPism.  I would be fine with removing
> support for both...
>

- As the person who fought to keep the umich kbind support in
the 2.0 release, I would like to see these features at least
deprecated for 2.1 and removed in 2.2. Or have you moved to
the odd/even scheme of version numbering?

- I fully agree that kbind's time has come, but transitioning
away from it in a graceful manner is a requirement at least at
Stanford. An OpenLDAP release that does not support it is a release
that we can't use for at least a year or two. Please don't
tell me that we have our heads up our asses, I am well aware
that we do. The problem is extracting our heads in some
reasonable fashion.

- Booker C. Bense