[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: draft-mmeredith-rootdse-vendor-info-02.txt
It would be acceptable to me if wording similar to the following were
included in the "vendor info" draft:
"Server implementations conforming to this document must also support RFC
2248. In particular the strings that are stored in the vendorName and
vendorVersion attribute values defined here must be also available via SNMP
from the applName and applVersion fields of the applTable MIB defined in
RFC 2248."
Note that I'd mandate this, so that the information is duplicated rather
than in place of. Does any one produce an LDAP server on a platform where
there is no SNMP agent?
Bruce
At 02:13 PM 2/25/00 -0500, Mark Smith wrote:
>I've written or helped people write dozens of LDAP clients (hundreds?)
>
>None of these clients includes SNMP client code, although they include
>many other protocols (SMTP, IMAP, POP, S/MIME, HTTP and many others).
>
>I conclude that most (LDAP) client applications don't have any need to
>speak SNMP today, and therefore we shouldn't force them to do so just to
>get at this information. A little redundancy doesn't seem like a bad
>thing in this instance.
>
>--
>Mark Smith
>Directory Product Development / iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions
>My words are my own, not my employer's. Got LDAP?
>
>
>Mark Meredith wrote:
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> I can see your point on duplication of information, but what if a site
is not running SNMP, or the client being used does not support SNMP how
would the information be known?
>>
>> If the information is in the ROOT DSE, I do not care how the information
is retrieved from a ldap server stand point, the server could query SNMP or
DNS ..... etc. That way the information would not be duplicated per say,
but multiply viewable.
>>
>> Does this sound reasonable to you?
>>
>> What do the client developers on this list think?
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> >>> Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com> 02/24/00
06:31PM >>>
>> I understand that you don't want to look the information up in SNMP. But,
>> why not? It's already there, and SNMP is pretty lightweight (simple even).
>> Do we really want to duplicate this vendor information in several places?
>> It could just as easily be added to SRV records in DNS? What about all of
>> the other informaiton in RFC 2248 and RFC 2605? Do you want to plop that
>> into the RootDSE as well?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> At 10:49 AM 2/18/00 -0700, Sukanta Ganguly wrote:
>> > It is very difficult and unclear at this point whether we should assume
>> >that all Internet Directory Client are in the position to talk different
>> >Internet protocols. Instead of assuming that the Directory Client will
talk
>> >SNMP and query the MIB for getting the vendor specific information, why
>> >can't we state that the Directory Client queries the rootDSE for the
>> >information and the implementation would determine whether to go to the
>> >SNMP MIB for the information or to have the vendor specific information,
>> >requested by Mark, within the Directory Repository. I think it will
>> >bring in more value to have the access to the information through the
>> >rootDSE but at the same time leave the invididual implementations to
>> >handle them. We all agree, based on the emails that I have seen flowing
>> >around related to this matter, that the information is useful so why not
>> >provide the flexibility. Thanks Sukanta Ganguly sganguly@novell.com
>> >
>> >>>><>>>>
>> >At 09:13 AM 2/18/00 -0500, Peter Strong wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> To be blunt, I don't believe that there is much use for this draft.
>> >>
>> >>For those of us who attempt to build applications that work with
>> >>multiple directory implementations, this information is very useful.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I said that
>> > Get it from there, since that is
>> > I don't see much point in duplicating this
>> > In my opinion, a good internet directory client will get
>> >information from a variety of internet servers: DNS, LDAP, SNMP, and
others.
>> >
>> >>> The information that it proposes to add to the Root DSE is already
>> >>> published is
>> >>> The
>> >>> I think that this draft
>> >>> should just point to RFC 2248 (and perhaps 2605) and explain where the
>> >>> These are already standards track
>> >>> documents, and have places to put the information that this draft
>> defines.
>> >>> (Just my $0.02 worth)
>> >>
>> >>The products we build are LDAP clients, not SNMP clients.
>> >>
>> >>This information should be available via LDAP.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Bruce
>> >>> ==============================================
>> >>> Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>> >>> Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>> >>> http://www.directory-applications.com
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>Peter Strong
>> >>Software Architect
>> >>Nortel Networks - Optivity Policy Services (OPS) and NetID
>> >><>
>> >>(613) 831-6615
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >==============================================
>> >Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>> >Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>> >http://www.directory-applications.com
>> >
>> >
>> ==============================================
>> Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>> Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>> http://www.directory-applications.com
>
>
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com