Re: CLDAP comments

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

The "focus" on operating system limitations is just one sencence which
can easily be removed wo impact on the argument.

You are right that the mechanism of combining results in a single PDU
was concieved for the express purpouse of overcoming UDP problems but
I still claim that the following is true:

1. Combining results in a single PDU is be a useful mechanism over
any transport (UDP or TCP). This should be written up as a separate
I-D.

2. Although CLDAP is very simple it is limited in that it does not
allow extensions or controls. In fact I claim that even if the draft 
were to be amended by saying that a "single-pdu-multiple-responses" 
control/extension SHOULD be used in most situations, then the draft 
would _still_ be better than 1798 by allowing further extensions to
be added to LDAP/UDP. I do not propose making this change though.

My feeling is that if LDAP/UDP is to have any chance of success it
needs to be folded into the framework of LDAPv3 even at the cost of
creating an admittedly non-compatible break with RFC1789.

I am not sure that I understand your problems with message id reuse.
Could you perhaps give an example? Please note that I do not claim
that this mechanism is the solution to all problems!

	Cheers Leif