IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: LDAP outcome entry

Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org> Tue, 23 February 2010 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
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 A718128C550 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:12:54 -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 wnXBNR9nQ8xY for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2689C28C23C for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>) id 1Njpuv-0007iv-JJ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:14:53 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>) id 1Njpuv-0002nf-20; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:14:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4B838DBB.4060804@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:11:39 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: LDAP outcome entry
References: <4B82AF43.1090304@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B82AF43.1090304@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:52:34 -0800
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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 08:12:54 -0000

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].

AFAICT, LDAP is also widely deployed for authorization data in SSO
environments like University networks. It also appears to be a popular
authorization framework for use with Samba.

#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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email