Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk> Mon, 06 January 2014 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364E81AE251 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:35:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p9OiOoJyoksv for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8FD1AE242 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-182-221-59.range86-182.btcentralplus.com ([86.182.221.59] helo=[192.168.1.68]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>) id 1W0Hpg-0000aU-Ny; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:35:37 +0000
Message-ID: <52CB2194.30907@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:35:16 +0000
From: Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <52C9BED5.2080900@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CAEA7D.5030002@highlandsun.com> <52CB194D.3090009@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CB1DE3.6040000@highlandsun.com>
In-Reply-To: <52CB1DE3.6040000@highlandsun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailcore-Auth: 12040446
X-Mailcore-Domain: 1286164
Subject: Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:35:47 -0000

On 06/01/2014 21:19, Howard Chu wrote:
>
>>> I must say I'm alarmed at seeing a new proposal that is primarily
>>> based on NIS-compatible attribute values. This is exactly the same
>>> fundamental problem in the original RFC2307 which made it less than
>>> useful for non-Solaris-based OSs like AIX and HPUX. This is the same
>>> flaw that I attempted to correct in my updated draft
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
>>
>> Please would you give me some specific examples of what you believe is
>> less than useful for AIX and HP-UX, and how you corrected these in
>> RFC2307bis-02.  Forgive me but I am coming from a Linux and Solaris
>> perspective.
>
> This is all pretty old ground. 
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200310/msg00138.html
>

Ok, so rather than being "alarmed" you could have just said, "please 
would you consider seconds instead of days for some of the shadow 
attributes".  This is a small request, and very easy to put into DBIS, 
and by no means a "fundamental problem".  Let's put comments into their 
right perspective.

Do you have any more alarming problems that can be turned into simple 
requests?

Thanks :-)

p.s. I'm being playful, no rudeness intended.