[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

To: "'Kurt D. Zeilenga'" <Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Ramsay, Ron'" <Ron.Ramsay@xxxxxx>
Subject: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
From: "Chris Apple" <capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 23:48:40 -0400
Cc: <ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-ldup.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-ldup-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc.
Reply-to: <capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Kurt,

Does this mean that you agree with Ron's point? Or not?

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

At 06:07 PM 5/28/2003, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>1) LCUP is meant to provide a simple synchronisation tool, similar to
persistent search.

I content that LDAP-Sync is meant to provide a simple
synchronization tool, similar to persistent search, as well. The
primary applications being considered for both solutions is the
same: meta-directory, address-books, etc..

Follow-Ups:
- RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
  - From: Kurt D. Zeilenga

References:
- RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
  - From: Kurt D. Zeilenga

Prev by Date: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
Next by Date: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
Previous by thread: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
Next by thread: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread