Re: LDAP

["Brien L. Wheeler" <[e-mail]>]

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