Re: LDAP outcome entry

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> 2.  Usage: My impression is that LDAP is hugely deployed and used within
>> enterprises, so that the ++ is correct.  Yes?  I'm curious about the
>> listing's asserting significant derivative work.  While it makes sense there
>> would be this, I'd like to get confirmation here.
>
> Some work I'm doing at the moment seems to indicate that Microsoft's
> active directory service is significantly a combination of Kerberos and
> LDAP.
> To the extent that AD "supports" LDAP, the ++ would seem to be justified
> [1].

Active Directory is a combination of Kerberos, LDAP, and Windows RPCs
for domain control. The LDAP part is quite interoperable since first
release in Windows 2000, the Kerberos part has become increasingly
interoperable, and the Windows RPCs and CIFS are now supported by
Samba (though I don't think CIFS ever made it off the ground for open
standardization).

I managed a fairly large Win2k domain, wrote several LDAP
authenticated web applications, and LDAP authentication for a mail
system, from 2001 to 2004, so I can definitely attest to deployment
and usefulness of this combination.

> AFAICT, LDAP is also widely deployed for authorization data in SSO
> environments like University networks.

Yep, my university and every company I've been at.

> It also appears to be a popular
> authorization framework for use with Samba.

I wish it were easier to deploy small setups for home and small
business users, though :\

> #g
> --
>
> [1] "AD added many features, the most important of which was LDAP support"
> -- http://www.symas.com/documents/Adam-Eval1-0.pdf, cited by wikipedia
> page on AD
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>