secinfo and so on

[Neil Brown]

On Friday May 18, bfields at fieldses.org wrote:
> 
> So does that turn out to be horrible?  Brilliant?  Tolerable?  Thoughts
> welcomed....
> 
> --b.

Would you believe "Brilliant but intolerable"???

It looks like the right solution to an awkward problem  (imagine using
kerberos for nfs but not mountd or NLM... That's like using AUTH_UNIX
for nfsd but AUTH_NONE for NLM..  No one would do that.  No wait, they
did). 

So I'll drop the intolerable.

However I'd like to see the nfs-utils side before giving a stamp of
approval.  It's always best to make sure one has to full picture
before committing to something.

NeilBrown