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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bruce Greenblatt [SMTP:Bgreenblatt@rsa.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 08, 1998 3:42 AM
> To:	Tim Howes; Alan Lloyd
> Cc:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject:	RE: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL:
> draft-ietf-ldapext-ref		erral-00.txt)
> 
> Just for status, I think that the CIP specifications are out for IETF
> last call, having completed working group last call.  The CIP protocol
> and architecture specifications are standards track, while the index
> object specifications are currently regarded as experimental.  Feel
> free
> to correct me if I've got this wrong!
	Experimental - yes it probably is.

	Indexing protocol is good for machines - business level named
based transaction systems are good for people - directories are for
people - but perhaps giving humans indexes when they get christened
could be an experiment.
	:-)

	regards

> Bruce
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Tim Howes [SMTP:howes@netscape.com]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, April 07, 1998 10:16 AM
> > To:	Alan Lloyd
> > Cc:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> > Subject:	Re: Search over referrals (Re: LAST CALL:
> > draft-ietf-ldapext-ref		erral-00.txt)
> > 
> > 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