IETF Logo Mail Archive

LDAP outcome entry

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 22 February 2010 16:20 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 3B7F628C0F4 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:20:35 -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 QURnWYQYZpzs for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9436D3A8148 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ppp-67-124-90-197.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.90.197]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1MGMPsv004235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:22:30 -0800
Message-ID: <4B82AF43.1090304@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:22:27 -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: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: LDAP outcome entry
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10431/Mon Feb 22 05:25:31 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]); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:22:30 -0800 (PST)
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:20:36 -0000

Folks,

I'd like to get a consensus assessment on the LDAP entry in the IETF Outcomes wiki:

    <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/wiki/IetfApplications#LDAP>


Specifically:


1.  Origin:  LDAP is an X.500 derivative, but it indeed might be more accurate 
to describe it as having been a fresh IETF effort that used X.500 as input. 
This would explain the current entry's Origina setting.  Does anyone disagree 
with the current entry's claim that LDAP originated in the IETF?


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.


Thanks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email