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

Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP

To: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:28:46 -0700
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006240930470.23348-100000@perq.cac.washingt on.edu>
References: <3.0.5.32.20000623203238.009b24f0@infidel.boolean.net>

At 09:55 AM 6/24/00 -0700, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
>Is that what you're asserting, Kurt?

I'm simply asserting that CLDAP is not LDAP and I would prefer
that each protocol have separate specifications for service location.
This would allow specifications for each protocol to be developed
and progressed independently from each other.  I would hate to see
LDAP location service eventual progression to Draft Standard or
Standard held up due to lack of CLDAP maturity.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
  - From: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>

References:
- draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
Next by Date: request for information
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread