\documentclass[landscape]{slides}
\usepackage{alltt}

\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.25in}
\addtolength{\textheight}{1.25in}

\def\slist{\list{-}{
  {\setlength{\parsep}{0ex plus0.2ex}
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0.2ex plus0.2ex minus0.2ex}
  }
}}
\let\endslist\endlist

\def\salltt{\vspace{-\baselineskip}\alltt}
\let\endsalltt\endalltt




\def\stitle#1{
\begin{center}
\large #1
\end{center}
}

\begin{document}
\pagestyle{plain}
\special{papersize=11in,8.5in}

\begin{slide}
\stitle{Optional Fields}
\begin{slist}
\item Several elements  were optional in revisions but required in RFC 1510.
\item KDC-REQ till 
\item Sender addresses in KRB-PRIV and KRB-SAFE
\end{slist}
\end{slide}
\begin{slide}
\stitle{UTF8 and Kerberos}
\begin{slist}
\item Kerberos must eventually use UTF8 for strings.
\item Today we don't specify the encoding.
\item Some implementations use UTF8; others locale-specific encoding.
\end{slist}
\end{slide}
\begin{slide}
\stitle{UTF8 is Hard}

\begin{slist}
\item Providing an upgrade path for locale-specific encodings introduces complexity.
\item Capability negotiation is required.
\item The semantics and format of messages containing strings must change.
\item Many opportunities for errors.
\end{slist}
\end{slide}
\begin{slide}
\stitle{Delaying UTF8 Specification}
\begin{slist}
\item Specifying how to handle UTF8 may delay release of Kerberos revisions.
\item The IESG  wants to encourage internationalization.  We may be under pressure to specify UTF8 now.
\item We may also have the option of delaying.  Should we?
\end{slist}
\end{slide}

\begin{slide}
\stitle{Delaying Implementation of UTF8}
\begin{slist}
\item Even if we  do specify UTF8 handling now, we might want to make it optional.
\item  If we tie capability negotiation of ticket extensions to UTF8, we must guarantee that vendors do not implement one without the other.
\end{slist}
\end{slide}
\end{document}
