Re: The LDAP 'list' debate

Russ Wright <wright@lbl.gov> Tue, 25 May 1993 20:47 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09989; 25 May 93 16:47 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09985; 25 May 93 16:47 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20694; 25 May 93 16:47 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.04801-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 25 May 1993 20:51:13 +0100
Received: from lbl.gov by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.12519-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 25 May 1993 20:50:59 +0100
Received: from [131.243.64.68] (macruss.lbl.gov) by lbl.gov (4.1/1.39) id AA09455; Tue, 25 May 93 12:54:48 PDT
Date: Tue, 25 May 93 12:54:48 PDT
Message-Id: <9305251954.AA09455@lbl.gov>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Russ Wright <wright@lbl.gov>
X-Sender: wright@net.lbl.gov
Subject: Re: The LDAP 'list' debate

>Another possible solution (and perhaps somebody who has read the spec
>closer than me can comment if it is possible) is for the LDAP server to
>have this "implementation" knowledge built in, and map the LDAP search
>onto list and reads for the relevant part of the DIT (you can work out
>which parts of the DIT are affected algorithmicaly).

If everyone becomes convinced that LDAP's lack of list realy is a problem,
I vote for this solution.  We should push for things that make it easier
for people to write X.500 clients.  I would much rather see extra effort
put into 
into the LDAP server than all the clients (of course I don't have to write
the LDAP server ;-) ).

Isn't the point of LDAP to make it easier to write X.500 clients?

Russ