What we're planning on doing, and what we're doing right now may be two
different things. BTW, we're largely market-dirven, as I would imagine
most directory vendors are. That might account for server vendors
implementing technology that is needed before technology that is cool. Language
tags are a highly requested technology outside the
U.S.
>>> Bruce Greenblatt
<bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com> 10/6/00 5:29:45 PM
>>>
OK. I got the response that I expected. LDAP Server
vendors are not planning on implementing any new extensions. Other than
this language tag thing (which I see virtually no use for), what is going on is
nothing.
Bruce
At 04:54 PM 10/2/2000, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
Bruce,
The problem is, when one tries
to implement language tags (an RFC of the ldapext WG) on the server, they run
into all sorts of unanswered questions and underspecified, or even conflicting
requirements. I don't think the goal is to specifically implement support for
an entry with numerous subtypes within a single attribute. I think people are
just trying to implement language tags in a correct and consistent
manner.
Though we'd like to implement many of
the drafts listed below, we feel more urgency to implement language tags now.
We don't want to just throw a solution together and get onto the next
extension before we feel assured of
interoperability.
Jim
>>> Bruce Greenblatt
<bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com> 10/2/00 5:04:42 PM
>>>
I'm sitting here watching the discussion on attribute
sub-typing, and
trying (without any success) to figure when I'd ever need
an entry that had
numerous subtypes within a single attribute. Can
someone give me a good
example of when a single LDAP entry would need one
attribute with lots of
subtypes present? It seems to me that this is
going in a different
direction that I'd like to see. As an LDAP
application developer, I'm more
interested in seeing other features added
on the server side. I can make
do without the sub-type stuff,
but I really need to be able to selectively
delete a sub-tree.
Just
out of curiosity, I'd be interested in finding out if anyone that
builds a
server has any plans on supporting any recently defined extensions
(controls or extended operations). For example:
LDAP
Authentication Response Control (draft)
LDAP Proxied Authentication
Control (draft)
LDAP Controls for Reply Signatures
(draft)
Returning Matched Values with LDAPv3 (draft)
LDAP Control
for a Duplicate Entry Representation of Search Results (draft)
LDAP Tree
Delete Control (draft)
LDAP Client Update Protocol (draft)
Simple
Operations on Subtrees (for LDAP) (draft)
An LDAP Control and Schema for
Holding Operation Signatures (RFC 2649)
I've probably missed a few that
have been defined. I'm very interested in
encouraging extension
development. As far as I can tell, there is very
little activity in
this area, but I'd like to hear differently. I'm
expecting deafening
silence in response, but am hopefully of hearing some
noise! I'm
sure that there would be plenty of interested beta
testers...
Thanks,
Bruce
==============================================
Bruce
Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See
my new Book on Internet Directories:
http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html
==============================================
Bruce
Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See my new Book on Internet
Directories: http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html
|