[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: LDAP ACLs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Leach [SMTP:paulle@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 3:35 PM
> To: Alan Lloyd
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: LDAP ACLs
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:45 PM
>
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Leach [SMTP:paulle@microsoft.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 7:41 AM
> >>
> >> Neither a standardized replication protocol nor standardized ACLs
> are
> >> absolutely needed for white pages applications.
> > Can I disagree here - and no doubt thousands of others would too.
> > eg. why is there so many copies of the white pages on this
> >planet and why are the master copies protected.
>
> It is not required that the ACLs be administered via LDAP for the
> white pages data to be protected. So your comment is a total
> non-sequitor.
>
That is a view and that would work - if one wanted non standard
ACI and non standard directory protocols.
But if one wanted standards for Access Control management that
aligned to the directory object model and the protocol that accesses the
directory then my view is correct.
ie. My comment is a non-sequitor if we talking about not
developing directory standards - but it isnt if we are..
regards alan
> - ----------------------------------
> Paul J. Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
> PGP Key ID: 0x978829DD
> Fingerprint: 9EFA A405 39B4 F91F DE6F 8939 6FE9 F5D8
> Key Servers: http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 ldap://certserver.pgp.com
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 5.5.5
>
> iQCVAwUBNUlfHcqlCdSXiCndAQHV8QP9EH2rLp4bP3xMILU+UifYaC+TdHsPmBF5
> gsqCevbmkWuBCAqFXmZGendvr8Tjwom25LmbPzBMgkmPm/qWn9JLwL+F0UAI5GC0
> kEaiKd2VUOnbQl54NDbZ1NeKBux2KAAvlkJStOgHg4+0FiFqXqiWplAUAVIprn0f
> YNU/L+JDr9g=
> =bGkc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>