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

Re: Supported RFC's and "features"

On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 14:59 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
> I suppose we need to update our published roadmap. I don't consider SSS or VLV 
> to be particularly important or well-designed features. In fact OpenLDAP has 
> an RFC-compliant implementation of SSS which is a pure no-op; this is 
> perfectly compliant because the SSS spec is so utterly useless in real 
> directories. Since VLV requires SSS, it is IMO equally useless or at least 
> seriously flawed, and I have a strong aversion to implementing flawed designs. 
> (Never mind all the other flawed designs we're forced to live with already...)

I see one valuable use for SSS - guaranteed search return order.
Regardless of the sort algorithm, knowing that searches will always
return entries in the same order allows for easy comparison, merge
sorts, or differentials with another list - as in necessary during the
reconciliation or join phases of provisioning.

Or is this a bad application of SSS?


Matt Smith
University Information Technology Services (UITS)
University of Connecticut
PGP Key ID: 0xE9C5244E

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part