Re: GSS API (as a DLL)...

• To: Marc Horowitz <marc@mit.edu>
• Subject: Re: GSS API (as a DLL)...
• From: jeff@spyglass.com (Jeff Hostetler)
• Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 08:44:17 -0600
• Cc: www-security@ns1.rutgers.edu
• In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 19 Aug 94 00:09:15 EDT.) <9408190409.AA19012@oliver.MIT.EDU>

> Now that I've said that, I'll be a hypocrite.  This is www-security,
> not random-os-security.  There are other lists for that.

I quite agree.  I think we've been missing the
(important-for-this-list) point.  The original
point was that we want/need a modular architecture
which would allow 'drop-in' security modules for
new security protocols and new encryption techniques
as they become available or necessary.

We need to keep this as a requirement.  Then the
design can focus on the necessary API's -- that
is, ''design this thing *as if* we are going to
dynamically link or use shared libraries''.
But dynamic linking or shared libraries is NOT
a requirement.

jeff

• Re: GSS API (as a DLL)...
• From: "Dean P. Jagels" <dpj@sware.com>

• Re: GSS API (as a DLL)...
• From: Marc Horowitz <marc@mit.edu>

• Previous: Re: GSS API (as a DLL)...
• Next: ANNOUNCE: AT&T Chrg_HTTP for Electronic Publishing
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread