Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!ietf-nntp-distribution-owner Message-ID: <9106061613.AA12033@funet.fi> Original-To: Eliot Original-Cc: ietf-nntp@turbo.bio.net Subject: Re: a new nntp draft References: Your message of Tue, 04 Jun 91 13:42:47 -0700. Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 12:13:26 -0400 From: Harri.Salminen@funet.fi (Harri K Salminen) Newsgroups: list.ietf-nntp Distribution: list Sender: list-admin@cs.toronto.edu Approved: list.ietf-nntp@mail.cs.toronto.edu Lines: 17 Your message dated: Tue, 04 Jun 91 13:42:47 PDT > - What form of access control / authentication mechanism should we include? My colleague Pekka Kyt|laakso who's just about to join this list brought just to my attention the version 5 of Kerberos which is currently in beta test. It seems that it doesn't have anymore licensing problems since you can ad whatever encryption libraries you want (and we do have European public DES implementations on the Eurpean Internet). In addition it seems to support now large interdomain connectivity and multiple addressing (in case you wanted to run NNTP over decnet or OSI) etc. There should be more info at the MIT Athena archive (or nic.funet.fi). So as standard methods we could have password/userid authentication mode and Kerberos at least. Maybe a separate command to select some other than standard DES encryption too. Harri