Re: RFC2255 - LDAP URL Format question...

[rweltman@netscape.com (Rob Weltman)]

Ed Reed wrote:

> If https is good enough as informational, I'd certainly agree that it would be adequate for ldaps, too...

  OK, we'll write it up.

Rob


>
>
> =================
> Ed Reed, Technologist
> Novell Product Management
> +1 801 222 3944 (new number!)
>
> >>> "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@cac.washington.edu> 09/01/1999 11:17:27 >>>
>
> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ed Reed wrote:
>
> > I think the ldaps:// scheme needs to be documented for general use,
> > though, and I'm glad to see in Mark's note that we can do that without
> > having to reissue 2255.  Whether that should be published as
> > informational or standards track is, at that point, less
> > important...it is, after all, contemporary albeit temporary practice,
> > soon to be relegated to legacy status (we hope!)
>
> Mark's note said that URL extensions can be documented without changing
> 2255, but ldaps: is not an extension to the ldap: scheme defined in 2255,
> it is a different scheme.  I note that the description of https:
> (draft-ietf-tls-https-02.txt) is being put forward as Informational; I
> would think that any documentation of ldaps: would also be Informational.
> I refer people to the last three weeks of the ietf list for info on how to
> do an Informational document (8^); but I agree this is worth writing down
> if only to point out that it's not standard.
>
> As to whether it is reasonable and necessary to define methods for
> specifying use of security features as URL extensions, I remain skeptical.
> I think effort is better spent on standard approaches to defining client
> and server security policy.
>
>  - RL "Bob"