[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-ref erral-00.txt)

To: Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>
Subject: Re: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-ref erral-00.txt)
From: Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:16:02 -0700
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Delivered-to: ldapext-archive@critical-angle.com
Organization: Netscape Communications Corp.
References: <D1A949D4508DD1119C8100400533BEDC40BA@DSG1>
Resent-date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"84sQG3.0.Ut4.A9cAr"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Alan Lloyd wrote:

> > The FIND IETF working group has done some work on this
> > problem. In particular, they've developed a protocol to be used
> > in passing this indexing information among servers. Check out
> > draft-ietf-find-* for more information.                  -- Tim
> >
>         We would rather go for deployability - the more protocols
> supporting the distributed directory service the worse it will get. Ours
> seems to work and scale so it aint broke - so we dont need to fix it :-)

Yes, I agree about fewer protocols being better.
That's one reason I favor LDAP + CIP over
LDAP + DAP + DSP + DISP + DOP.

(sorry, could not resist ;-)                  -- Tim

References:
- RE: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-ref erral-00.txt)
  - From: Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>

Prev by Date: Re: About aliases an X.500....
Next by Date: RE: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-ref erral-00.txt)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread