Subject: RE: CLDAP comments

From: "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:57:50 +1100

Hi,

Regarding combining results into a single PDU, I note that this would be
imcompatible with the LDAP ASN.1 definitions.

It is a good strategy to send multiple PDUs in a single packet, but this can
be done independently of the specification (we do it). It is simply an
implementation detail that, if considered important, can be pointed out in
an aside.

Ron.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 19:27
To: Kurt D. Zeilenga
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CLDAP comments 

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

---

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:37:25 -0800

>imcompatible with the LDAP ASN.1 definitions.

Isn't this exactly the point that Leif was making, and why it is a good 
idea to update CLDAP?

==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See my new Book on Internet Directories: 
http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html