RE: Beginning taxonomy for finding LDAP servers.

[Ryan Moats <jayhawk@att.com>]

> > Method: "discovery"
> >
> > Besides using other methods, this method involves storing either the DN
or
> > related URL in the DNS in some way.  This method requires an
administrator
> > to configure the DNS with the information and the idea of storing either
a
> > DN or a URL in the DNS is a controversial one. The i-d that expounds
this
> > idea will not be renewed and is being taken off the service location
> > WG's workplan.  This method would require persuation of the IESG to even
> > reach experimental status.
> >
>
> Does the use of NAPTRs and SRV records fall under this heading (as in the
> rfc:s published by the urn wg)? Not beeing entierly privvy to the
> politics of the urn wg it would be very interesting to hear some opinions
> as to why this would fail (would it?)

In there latest (final?) version, the discovery draft
(draft-ietf-svrloc-discovery-10)
and advertising draft (draft-ietf-svrloc-advertising-05) propose using SRV
and NAPTR
records.  These drafts are still available from the ID repository, but my
caveats
above apply: they are highly controversial and are being removed from the
SVRLOC
working group and won't be renewed (unless there is interest someplace else,
like
here).

The discovery draft has already been up for IESG review once and failed.
The
advertising draft never made it past AD review.  The controversy is over
sticking the URL information in the DNS and the scaling implications of
this.

While an early version of JNDI supported the method in
draft-ietf-svrloc-advertising-02
(I think that's the right draft number), I haven't looked to see if support
for this method has been dropped from the JNDI or not. Going forward with
this
method would require potentially a lot of political work with the drafts
that propose this idea.

Ryan

P.S.  I am not proposing adding this as a working group item unless there is
a LOT of mailing-list support. After two years, I feel the probability of
finding
a solution with minimum controversy is unlikely.