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

Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, c.harding@opengroup.org
Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
From: Robert Allen <robert.allen@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Content-md5: zg//4ZzpaL2/gr+8k2w2yw==
Resent-date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"svC9P2.0.Rh1.159Ks"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

>>From: Chris Harding <c.harding@opengroup.org>

[snip]

>>better in theory - at least for non-ASCII information - but LDIF is
>>adequate and is there now AND is widely supported. So I think that it would
>>be appropriate for LDIF to be on the standards track.  
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Chris

Mine is another vote to move forward with LDIF.  It's by no
means perfect, but at this point it appears to be a de-facto
standard among LDAP directory implementations, and such a common
form is desperately needed (and today is used in the form of LDIF)
among the many LDAP clients out there who provision LDAP directories.

Regards,

Robert Allen
rja@sun.com

Prev by Date: Question on draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-c-api-01.txt
Next by Date: RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread