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

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>]

Colin, in answer to your Q may I suggest quickly :-)

regards alan

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Colin Robbins [SMTP:Colin.Robbins@nexor.co.uk]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 9:13 PM
> To:	Tim Howes; 'D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk'
> Cc:	ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject:	RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-referral-00.txt
> 
> David Chadwick[SMTP:d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk] wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Ok. I propose we do not support NSSRs. Does anybody
> > > really think we should? If so, why?             -- Tim
> > > 
> > > 
> > I am happy to drop them. I think that NSSRs are a performance
> killer, 
> > and for this reason alone should be dropped, let alone the
> complexity 
> > issue.
> > 
> 
> I agree.   NSSRs in X.500 are a nightmare, and I am not aware of any
> situation where 
> they have been used (even though NEXORs own product supports them).
> Most X.500 profiles I have seen, suggest NSSRs should not be used.
> 
> Assuming we do drop them in LDAP,  how do we now get X.500 to drop
> them :-)
> 
> Colin