[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: protocol: strongAuthRequired



It seems consensus is to go ahead with the name change unless anyone else can substantiate harm in doing so.
 
Jim

>>> Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com> 12/10/04 7:33:37 AM >>>
Michael Ströder wrote:
>
> Are you aware that this could lead to a name change in various existing
> LDAP client APIs?
>
> Therefore I'm against such a name change although the name change would
> make the meaning more clear.

I think most API implementations would keep the old name around (at
least for a while) and also support the new name. Or is that a problem
for some API implementations? There is some benefit to changing the
name in the protocol (minor though it is).

-Mark