Re: Access Authorization

Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
Message-id: <sgZqiEoB0KGWIbCn0e@holmes.parc.xerox.com>
Date: 	Wed, 15 Sep 1993 12:22:56 PDT
Sender: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
From: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch, luotonen@ptsun00.cern.ch (Ari Luotonen)
Subject: Re: Access Authorization
In-reply-to: <9309151507.AA23220@ptsun00.cern.ch>
References: <9309151507.AA23220@ptsun00.cern.ch>
Status: RO
Excerpts from ext.WorldWideWeb: 15-Sep-93 Re: Access Authorization Ari
Luotonen@ptsun00.cer (2824)

> For instance in this
> example server is accepting both Kerberos authentication and "basic";
> if the server requires the relatively high authenticity that Kerberos
> provides, why is it that it should settle for less?

Presumably this is for the case where only "basic" is required, but the
server is willing to accept additional *higher-security* protocols as
well.

Bill