IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: LDAP outcome entry

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 23 February 2010 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0845828C3A3 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:41:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9t5J65TF8KR for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB18D28C39E for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.31.147] (69-170-63-170.static-ip.telepacific.net [69.170.63.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1NMhfta002199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:43:49 -0800
Message-ID: <4B845A18.5010603@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:43:36 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx>
Subject: Re: LDAP outcome entry
References: <4B82AF43.1090304@dcrocker.net> <4B838DBB.4060804@ninebynine.org> <1629dc8c1002231108s49c3ce70lda09b38eeb6f6a20@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1629dc8c1002231108s49c3ce70lda09b38eeb6f6a20@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10442/Tue Feb 23 14:09:42 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:41:48 -0000

Folks,

Thanks for the followup on this.


Here are the claims I am hearing:

1. LDAP is very widely deployed and used in Enterprises.

2. Among that set, it has become a critical infrastructure service.

2. LDAP is not (widely) deployed or used across the open Internet, for use 
between random pairs.

I am not sure whether there are restrictions that should be applied, about the 
/type/ of Enterprise that is popular for LDAP use.  I'd guess medium-to-large 
Enterprises, more than small, but could imagine otherwise.  It's probably not 
essential to get agreement on this, but the agreement might solidify agreement 
about whether LDAP is essential.

If #1 and #2 are correct, I'd guess that LDAP should get a ++, rather than a +.

Do folks agree?  Disagree?


d/

ps. I'm still hoping someone who is deep in LDAP deployment and history can 
partition the entry into appropriate, distinct entries.
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email