Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Howard Chu <> Fri, 10 January 2014 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3713B1ADFA5 for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.439
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ObMsU2lvbu6q for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:34:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18331ADF88 for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB2510F3D; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:33:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:33:56 -0800
From: Howard Chu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark R Bannister <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:34:10 -0000

Mark R Bannister wrote:
> On 06/01/2014 21:49, Howard Chu wrote:
>> The alarming part is that such obvious flaws in data modeling are
>> still occurring today, over a decade after they were first addressed.
>> I raised these issues back in 2001 as I recall. Some references in
>> 2002
> Well, I still wouldn't call that "alarming" unless you are of the
> singular belief that every message you have personally written has been
> read by everyone in the world.

Don't be stupid. My expectation is that anyone who intends to write new LDAP 
specifications for the IETF has already read all of the existing LDAP 
specifications and any discussions surrounding relevant works-in-progress, 
along with the already published defects in such unfinished items. Clearly you 
have not done your due diligence.

It takes very little time to troll the ldapext mailing list archive and find 
previous attempts to fix RFC2307. E.g.

It takes not much time at all to google "rfc2307 nis ldap" and find commentary 
from the original author(s) noting the spec's problems and better alternatives.

It takes not much time at all to see that most of the problems you're trying 
to address have already been attacked, e.g. the schema mapping in your spec 
overlaps RFC4687.

If you haven't fully absorbed the existing specs and standardization efforts 
then there's no way to take anything you've done as anything other than 
reinventing the wheel. That's not how progress gets made, that's how time gets 

   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp. 
   Director, Highland Sun
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP