Re: The LDAP 'list' debate

Russ Wright <> Tue, 25 May 1993 20:47 UTC

Received: from 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 by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20694; 25 May 93 16:47 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Tue, 25 May 1993 20:51:13 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Tue, 25 May 1993 20:50:59 +0100
Received: from [] ( by (4.1/1.39) id AA09455; Tue, 25 May 93 12:54:48 PDT
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 12:54:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Russ Wright <>
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?