What I would like to suggest is that we restrict LDAP to being aSteve, perhaps you could say more about why you think
directory access protocol, and all agree to do this. Extensions,
which are really extensions to this access protocol, can be called
this (e.g., LDAP Paged Results).However, system extensions, which are not directly tied into LDAP
should be called something else. For example "Lightweight MultiMaster
Directory Replication Protocol (LMMDRP)". Note that it would be
possible to build a directory which maintained replicas using LMMDRP,
which could be accessed by X.500 DAP and NDS, but not by LDAP.I think that this decoupling about how we refer to these
specifications will help general clear thinking as this work develops.
LDAP provides a way to access A/V pairs in a hierarchical tree.
Why can't access control and replication be implemented in terms
this facility ? Our experience with the Netscape Directory Server
is that this is not only possible, but saves much time in
in arguing about what the new protocol would look like.
All you need to is argue about the semantic content of the A/V pairs.
Surely in proposing an entierly new protocol, you'd better
have very persuasive reasons for doing so. To me, "enhanced clarity
in the discussion" isn't a persuasive reason. Indeed, clear thinking
seems to be a function of the thinkers, rather than of the subject
under consideration !