RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-simplepaged-02.txt

["Vinay Shankar" <Vinay.Shankar@worldtalk.com>]

With respect, I beg to differ here. The paging might be an unnecessary feature from certain applications' point of view but definitely not silly. There are applications that would like to see this feature in LDAP servers. The servers are expected to be able to handle the extra burden caused by this kind of feature as they will normally be running on "powerful"  systems while one would expect the client applications to mandate minimal resource requirements.  Also it may not be desirable to change the underlying network configuration for a specific LDAP client.
Though I do agree that eventually we will have a LDAP protocol without 'L' but that is only expected when a access protocol becomes a "server" protocol.  (LDAP servers that front-end an X.500 Directory Server can easily provide the paging by making use of this feature in the Directory Server.)

Regards.
-vinay 

Vinay Shankar
Worldtalk Corporation

----------
From:  Ed Oskiewicz[SMTP:ed.oskiewicz@bt-sys.bt.co.uk@inetgw]
Sent:  Wednesday, February 25, 1998 9:01 AM
To:  'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'; 'ietf-asid@netscape.com'
Subject:  RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-simplepaged-02.txt

There are two topics in this note, the first is my rejection of paging
as a silly and unnecessary feature, the second airs some worries about
critical extensions.

Paging? Just say no
===============

My initial reaction is why bother?, this feature places a burden on
servers by expecting them to do work that is properly performed by
clients. The underlying network protocols can be used to throttle data
which arrives too quickly for a client without adding to the complexity
of server implementation and without adding to the resources required by
a running server. Any client complex enough to need paging for multiple
result sets can implement it for itself. Could I remind you all that the
L in LDAP stood for lightweight, IMHO this feature is inappropriate for
a lightweight services which may run on smallish platforms. 

CRITICAL considered harmful
=====================

Could I also speculate that certain vendors may use features like this
to lock out competition, e.g. when that company's servers implement this
feature then all of their clients might request paging as a CRITICAL
extension and thus significantly reduce the number of alternative
servers they are able to interwork with thus ensuring that while lip
service is paid to standards interworking is prevented. Cynical? me? 

I guess this comment is also true of any other extension which could be
requested as CRITICAL. We wish to use LDAP clients and servers from a
variety of sources, we expect them to interwork. Vendor supplied clients
requesting CRITICAL extensions known to be implemented by that vendor's
servers will prevent this from the outset. Paging is an especially
vacuous reason for interworking to fail.

Stale cookies
==========

A cookie is either valid or it is not and invalid cookies, aged out
cookies and exhausted cookies are all met with a response of unwilling
to perform. The document should clarify this. The final sentence of the
penultimate paragraph of section 3 should be deleted and a paragraph
describing the handling of invalid cookies should be inserted.

Paging? No thank you
================

I believe that paging is unnecessary, it will complicate server
implementation and may prevent interworking. The extension should be
abandoned. I also believe that the ability for clients to specify
extensions as critical may have killed off LDAP as a standard before it
has even been established.

Needless to say these are personal opinions only, on this matter I speak
from my company not for it.

Ed
-- 
Ed Oskiewicz, B54/81, BT Labs Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK,
IP5 3RE
ed.oskiewicz@bt-sys.bt.co.uk
Tel: +44 1473 640896	Fax: +44 1473 643545

>