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

RE: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)

To: "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:40:15 -0800
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A569051BEADF@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
Resent-date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:42:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"LDUfHD.A.n1.izJN4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 04:25 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Paul Leach (Exchange) wrote:
>> At 04:01 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Paul Leach (Exchange) wrote: 
>> > The kind of admin I was talking about is one who has authority
>> > over what the Directory User can do.
>> 
>> This may not be same admin who has authority over what information
>> is published by the Directories to which the user has been authorized
>> to obtain information from.  That is, one admin may have authority
>> over what information is published to the user and another admin
>> may have authority over how that information is used.  This
>> policy scenerio is quite common.
>
>So?

My point is that the LDAP API should be policy neutral.  The
API can and should provide mechanisms for application
developers can implement policy aware clients; however,
the API itself should not be policy aware.

References:
- RE: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)
  - From: "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)
Next by Date: RE: Policy in IETF APIs (was: Standards and APIs)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread