RE: Proposed LDUP Charter

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that Chris - and I realised that X.525 is mentioned in the
requirements. However, X.500 and DAP was mentioned in LDAP and look what
happened. eg LDAP Extensions that wont work on distributed systems and
all sorts of information and encoding issues.

IMHO I think it is very bad engineering to have a protocol (eg. LDAP
that permits extensions) and to put in these extensions other protocols
that do different (semantically speaking) system operations. ie. I could
add FTP as an LDAP extension and so on. This may seem a fun way of doing
something but what happens - nobody in the commercial world dealing with
this stuff knows what the differences are between LDAP V3 support in a
client, a server, in replication, in LDAP single servers and what works
in larger scale X.500 systems. ie an operational and interoperability a
mess.
I just do not believe using LDAP as a gladbag for anything that moves.

No doubt as soon as the protocol spec is release many will comment.

thanks and regards alan
PS - cannot resist it. :-) 
Tired of slow and small directories - try X.500.

 

----------
From: capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
Sent: 9/26/98 2:43:14 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed LDUP Charter

>Perhaps getting the protocol requirements defined will help.

The LDUP requirements document can be accessed using:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weiser-replica-req-01.txt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Apple                     Business Site: AnyWho Directory Service
Internet Directory Group                       http://www.anywho.com
AT&T Labs
capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 908 582 2409                 Tired of slow directories?  Try AnyWho.
------------------------------------------------------------------------