Re: Addressless tickets in 0.8.x

[Harald Barth <haba@kth.se>]

> > have something in between (say called "auto") which uses the
> > no-address strategy only when the client is a RFC1597 adrdess and the
> > other part is not? (No, I don't feel the urge to make "auto" work for
> > folks that use NAT between different RFC1597 nets).
> 
> Does anyone really think it's realistic to enforce addresses? 

Not for folks doing NAT, but for the rest of us, why not?

I don't like the trend towards addressless tickets with a long
lifetime. Often such a tgt is left lying around when a service ticket
would have been enough.

> I wish Sun, MIT and Heimdal used the same name for this  
> option too.

So who implements synonyms/aliases first?

Harald.