Re: CLDAP (Connectionless LDAP)

[Tim Howes <[e-mail]>]

> From:    [e-mail]
> To:      Tim Howes <[e-mail]>

> For responses I believe that the resolution is to require them
> all to be put in a single packet.
> 
> For requests there has been no resolution of either: (a) the actual
> requirement; (b) given the requirement, the mechanism to be used.  My
> proposed resolution is:
> 
>     1. Make a CLDAP request be defined:
> 
> 	CLDAPMessage ::= CHOICE {
> 	    LDAPMessage,		-- excluding Bind, Unbind
> 	    SEQUENCE OF LDAPMessage
> 	}
> 
>     2. Make implementation of the second form optional for a
>     server.

Why won't the same "put them all in a single packet" solution work
for requests as well as for responses?  The actual requirement, I
think, is what if you wanted to an authenticated search, or modify,
or whatever, over CLDAP?  One answer is that you should use LDAP
for that.  But it seems trivial to me to say that if you want to do
that over CLDAP you can, just put your bind request + authenticated
operations + unbind request (optional, really) into a single packet and
ship it off.  If it's really this easy, why not do it?  Simon, would
this make you happy, or can you see another reason why the SEQUENCE
or CHOICE approach is needed?

I'm not really wild about the idea of making some parts optional
for the server to implement.  Seems like that would be asking for
interoperability problems down the road.                 -- Tim