Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-referral-00.txt

[Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>]

David Chadwick wrote:

> > Date:          Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:46:34 -0800
> > From:          Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>
> > Organization:  Netscape Communications Corp.
>
> > > entry. Consequently LDAP cannot cater for NSSRs, simply because the
> > > names of the children are not known by the referencing server.
> >
> > There was some talk earlier of addressing this with an extension
> > to the URL giving the name of the superior entry. Mark Wahl
> > also had some ideas for how to handle this on the X.500 side
> > as well. So we decided to defer that to a separate document, or
> > possibly a later revision. Do either of those solutions appeal to
> > you? Any better suggestions on how to best address this would
> > definitely be appreciated.
> >
>
> This is a tricky issue, as my last message mentioned. I suggest that
> we do the following
> I) take a vote on whether NSSRs should be supported, or kicked into
> touch. I can tell you that NSSRs caused us a lot of pain in X.500
> distributed operations (more than their benefit warranted in my
> opinion) but some folks were rooting for them. Steve Kille was one
> expert who stood up for NSSRs once upon a time. I dont know if he
> still does or not.

Ok. I propose we do not support NSSRs. Does anybody
really think we should? If so, why?             -- Tim