Re: LDAP

"Brien L. Wheeler" <Brien.L.Wheeler@heckle.mitre.org> Tue, 08 June 1993 16:28 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06995; 8 Jun 93 12:28 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06991; 8 Jun 93 12:28 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13733; 8 Jun 93 12:28 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.04219-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:47:39 +0100
Received: from mbunix.mitre.org by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.16966-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:47:21 +0100
Received: from heckle.mitre.org by mbunix.mitre.org (911016.SGI/4.7) id AA23538; Tue, 8 Jun 93 10:47:15 -0400
Message-Id: <9306081447.AA23538@mbunix.mitre.org>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Received: from localhost by heckle.mitre.org with SMTP (PP) id <19880-0@heckle.mitre.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 1993 10:46:59 -0400
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: LDAP
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jun 93 09:34:47 EDT." <9306081334.AA07847@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 10:46:55 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Brien L. Wheeler" <Brien.L.Wheeler@heckle.mitre.org>

Edwards Reed >> 
> > And oh yes, there needs to be a provision for connectionless directory
> > lookups if you want LDAP to be a serious contender for name services.
> > Most directory lookups in the Clearinghouse are connectionless, and that's
> > allowed us to take our 950 domains to 6 million+ transactions a day on
> > 10 year old hardware.  I saw some discussion along these lines when I 
> > returned from vacation, and wanted to get my 2 cents in...

Tim Howes >

> That's a fine idea, one we can work on once the current LDAP spec is
> out the door.  A separate RFC defining LDAP over UDP would be easy to
> produce.                                                      -- Tim

Tim,

     In my mind, there is a difference between running LDAP over UDP
and running a connectionless LDAP.  A "connectionless" LDAP should
really be a stateless LDAP.  In a stateless LDAP, a client should be
able to completely encapsulate a useful operation (such as a READ)
into a single UDP data transmission and receive a result in a single
data transmission.  The BIND should be implicitly anonymous, or optionally
defined on the same exchange.  Once you start getting into BIND, response,
READ, response exchanges, you have a stateful protocol.

     Thoughts?

     Brien