Re: CLDAP comments

[Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se>]

Hi Kurt,

The example stated in the draft, i.e that of a cip proxy service, is a 
valid one. Operational experience from the GIDS project shows that tcp 
overhead is a problem in the case of one request and multiple responses 
(in this case references are received from the index). A similar situation 
is when a directory server is used as a replacement of a NIS server 
(i.e rfc2307).

Furthermore the work in rfc 1798 contains two essentially independent 
parts, one beeing the udp-transport and the other beeing the combination
of several results into one pdu. In the spirit of LDAPv3 it would seem
like a better idea (imho) to create an extension which regardless of 
transport ships multiple results in a single pdu. There are several
possible solutions to the problem of determining when results have been
received, how many etc etc. In fact many of the comments you made are
already noted in the draft but I believe that it is better to solve them
within the framework of LDAPv3 extensions than to stay with an fundamentally 
different PDU format.

I would also suggest that whatever happens to this draft rfc 1798 be moved 
to historic. It might be interesting to get an ADs input on the last
comment: given the fact that rfc1798 and this draft is not compatible (even
though it is easy for a server to tell them apart) can they, and if so under
what circumstances, share the same assigned port?

	Cheers Leif