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

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

To: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:51:21 -0700
Cc: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20000624211603.00937c70@pop.walltech.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.20000624102846.0095fea0@infidel.boolean.net> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006240930470.23348-100000@perq.cac.washingt on.edu> <3.0.5.32.20000623203238.009b24f0@infidel.boolean.net>

At 09:16 PM 6/24/00 -0700, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>At 10:28 AM 6/24/2000 -0700, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>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...
>
>Huh.  CLDAP is supposed to be a subset of LDAP over UDP?

I'll leave that for the authors to answer.

The issue here is quite simple.  Is it better to have one
document or two?  I argue two is better as one as they
could be developed and progressed independently of each
other.

Kurt

References:
- Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
  - From: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-02 and UDP
Next by Date: 1st Years Income Guaranteed
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread