Subject: Re: PAM
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 22:08:24
[ On Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 16:50:52 (-0700), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: PAM
> > > - PAM is standard.
> > "Standard"? I don't think so. It's common, but it's far from being a
> > real standard. I wonder if the GNU/Linux implementation can even load
> > and use a binary Solaris plugin (assuming it's for the same target CPU).
> PAM is a standard. http://www.opengroup.org/tech/rfc/mirror-rfc/rfc86.0.txt
That's not a standard, that's an OSF RFC (which as I understand it is
one heck of a lot more of a "request" than even an IETF RFC is, though
it's being handled by a vendor group, not an independent body). And
it's not very new either (any movement on it since it was published?).
And the authors are from the sole vendor in control of this "standard".
If or when it makes it into The Single UNIX Specification then it might
be called a real standard, though it'll only really be "important" from
a standards perspective if some truly non-vendor standards body such as
the ISO adopts it too.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>