[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-simplepaged-02.txt
This one's easy. Ed doesn't think that paging is a good idea. It's an
optional extension. He shouldn't implement it. Other people that do like
paging should. Am I missing something?
Bruce
At 11:10 AM 2/26/98 -0000, Ed Oskiewicz wrote:
>Sorry that your comments are at the end - brain dead mail program.
>
>Paging is not necessary for simple clients, they can just suck data from
>the network as and when they feel like it. Complex clients can and
>should handle multiple directory searches for themselves, 'mandating
>minimal resource requirements' is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be
>bothered to provide the resources for my client you should provide them
>for me". What people actually want from paging is for servers to store
>the results of queries for them, I regard this as intolerable as IT DOES
>NOT SCALE, if you want the results, you should store them.
>
>The spec clearly indicates that paging sessions may be abandoned due to
>lack of resources thus there is no pretence of a guarantee that busy
>servers can keep a set of paged results long enough to be of use for a
>client. Thus clients will experience intermittent failures on busy
>servers and will blame the server when the true cause is the inadequacy
>of the client. Worse, the directory service as a whole will be perceived
>to be unreliable when the actual reason is flaky clients.
>
>As you hint in your final paragraph, the traditional engineering
>technique for coping with a mismatch in performance between subsystems
>is to insert a buffer between them, if inadequate clients want a storage
>service for directory lookups then perhaps we should be looking at a
>intermediate set of proxies which can store the results of directory
>searches performed at full speed and trickle them out on demand. Clients
>can then, if necessary, be charged for the storage service they are
>using.
>
>I repeat, the burden on servers of paging as described in this draft is
>unnecessary and in my view silly.
>
>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
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Vinay Shankar [SMTP:Vinay.Shankar@worldtalk.com]
>>Sent: 25 February 1998 23:04
>>To: 'Ed Oskiewicz'
>>Cc: 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'; 'ietf-asid@netscape.com'
>>Subject: RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-simplepaged-02.txt
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
================================================
Bruce Greenblatt bruceg@innetix.com
http://www.innetix.com/~bruceg
================================================