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

Re: LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC

To: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:59:34 -0700
Cc: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <376E5E66.192CB1F0@netscape.com>
References: <3765666C.BA407FF4@OpenLDAP.Org> <3765666C.BA407FF4@OpenLDAP.Org> <3.0.5.32.19990618155248.009f6920@localhost>
Resent-date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"Zyy6u.A.LhB.4Lmb3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 11:46 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Mark Smith wrote:
>Hallvard makes a good point that we don't say what you can do with the
>value returned by LDAP_OPT_DESC.

It's implementation specific...

>For that reason, I propose that we
>either strike LDAP_OPT_DESC from the spec. for now or say that support
>for LDAP_OPT_DESC is optional and if it is supported it should return an
>operation system TCP/IP I/O socket.

Would that be an TLI socket or a BSD socket?

I suggest LDAP_OPT_DESC and ber_socket_t be striken.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC
  - From: mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)

References:
- LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
- Re: LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
- Re: LDAP C API: LDAP_OPT_DESC
  - From: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>

Prev by Date: Re: LDAP C API: error handling
Next by Date: Re: LDAP C API: error handling
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread