Re: revised LDAPEXT charter

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>]

Mark,

thanks for the charter update.
I'm CCing this message to the LDAPEXT list, because I think
we need to work this out with the list.

I'm definitely of the opinion that the Right Target for
triggered search is Experimental, not Proposed.

I think it is an out-and-out bad idea to hack this
functionality straight into the general LDAP service;
it basically splits the LDAP server community into two
parts that will be optimized for different purposes.

The extension is basically allowing the definition of
arbitrary-complexity search expressions, each of which
must be executed at each and every update of the database
(and in the scenarios where it makes sense, updates are
expected to be frequent). A server that is optimized for
such queries will be a VERY different beast from the
read-mostly, relatively-static data that most current
LDAP implementations are created for.

(The wahl-trigger seems better than the psearch
draft in this regard, because it allows the code
to be isolated to that part of the server dealing with
the changelog - but I'm not sure the functionality
here is what people want.)

Note that there are other protocols being proposed
that are explicitly aimed at change notification;
RVP (draft-calsyn-rvp-00.txt) is only one of them.

What is the opinion of other people on the list?


                       Harald A

NOTE: New Email address: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
I am working for Maxware (www.maxware.no) as of Dec 1, 1997