LDAP on DSA instead of separate process.

"Luis P. Caamano" <lpc@sware.com> Wed, 03 May 1995 16:19 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04479; 3 May 95 12:19 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04472; 3 May 95 12:19 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10188; 3 May 95 12:19 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.04191-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 3 May 1995 16:40:12 +0100
Received: from bastion.sware.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.02345-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 3 May 1995 16:39:40 +0100
Received: from shlep.sware.com (shlep.sware.com [139.131.1.14]) by bastion.sware.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA02604; Wed, 3 May 1995 11:28:51 -0401
Received: by shlep.sware.com (5.65/2.0) from alehouse.sware.com id AA12346; Wed, 3 May 95 11:34:12 -0400
Received: by alehouse.sware.com (5.65/2.1) from localhost id AA01924; Wed, 3 May 95 11:34:02 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: "Luis P. Caamano" <lpc@sware.com>
Message-Id: <9505031534.AA01924@alehouse.sware.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Luis P. Caamano" <lpc@sware.com>
X-Mailer: InterMail [2.0 alpha3]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: quipu <quipu@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, OSI-DS <osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, ldap@umich.edu
Subject: LDAP on DSA instead of separate process.
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 11:34:02 -0400

Sorry for the crossposting, but the subject seems appropriate for all three lists.

We have a situation where we need to write several utility programs that query
an X.500 directory.  We would like to use the LDAP client library for this
in order to use plain sockets and minimize the overhead.  

The problem is that we would like not to need the ldapd daemon.  We want to
have only two processes talking:  the client program and the DSA.  The first
thought is to add LDAP support to the DSA.  That is, make the DSA listen on
port 389 also, merge in LDAP support and eliminate the ldapd.

Now the question, has this been done?  Is this crazy or does it make sense?


thanks

----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis P. Caamano  (LC2385)             |           lpc@sware.com
SecureWare, Inc. Atlanta, GA, USA     |           (404) 315-6296