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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mmeredit-rootdse-vendor-info-00.txt

To: Mark Meredith <MMEREDIT@novell.com>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mmeredit-rootdse-vendor-info-00.txt
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <kurt@boolean.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:28:43 -0800
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <s833d66a.042@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
Resent-date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"CrRXYB.A.1WC.ewIN4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

If published at all, I would suggest it be published as
informational.

I would rather see us define attribute types to document
existence on specific features instead of relying on vendor
naming/version information.  Otherwise, as vendors start implementing
each others features, we'll end up with same ( xxx compatible )
crap that has plagued HTTP services.

Kurt

----
Kurt D. Zeilenga		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mmeredit-rootdse-vendor-info-00.txt
  - From: ggood@netscape.com (Gordon Good)

References:
- I-D ACTION:draft-mmeredit-rootdse-vendor-info-00.txt
  - From: Mark Meredith <MMEREDIT@novell.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)
Next by Date: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-mmeredit-rootdse-vendor-info-00.txt
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread