Subject: Re: RFC2255 - LDAP URL Format question...

From: "Ed Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:53:24 -0600

If https is good enough as informational, I'd certainly agree that it would be adequate for ldaps, too...

=================
Ed Reed, Technologist
Novell Product Management
+1 801 222 3944 (new number!)

>>> "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]> 09/01/1999 11:17:27 >>>

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ed Reed wrote:

> I think the ldaps:// scheme needs to be documented for general use,
> though, and I'm glad to see in Mark's note that we can do that without
> having to reissue 2255.  Whether that should be published as
> informational or standards track is, at that point, less
> important...it is, after all, contemporary albeit temporary practice,
> soon to be relegated to legacy status (we hope!)

Mark's note said that URL extensions can be documented without changing
2255, but ldaps: is not an extension to the ldap: scheme defined in 2255,
it is a different scheme.  I note that the description of https:
(draft-ietf-tls-https-02.txt) is being put forward as Informational; I
would think that any documentation of ldaps: would also be Informational.
I refer people to the last three weeks of the ietf list for info on how to
do an Informational document (8^); but I agree this is worth writing down
if only to point out that it's not standard.

As to whether it is reasonable and necessary to define methods for
specifying use of security features as URL extensions, I remain skeptical.
I think effort is better spent on standard approaches to defining client
and server security policy.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: [email-masked] (Rob Weltman)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:45:41 -0700

> If https is good enough as informational, I'd certainly agree that it would be adequate for ldaps, too...

  OK, we'll write it up.

Rob