SOS & LDBP
Colin Robbins <c.robbins@xtel.co.uk> Thu, 12 March 1992 09:53 UTC
Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00331; 12 Mar 92 4:53 EST
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00793; 12 Mar 92 4:54 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00788; 12 Mar 92 4:54 EST
X400-Received: by mta bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Wed, 11 Mar 1992 09:25:49 +0000
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 09:25:49 +0000
X400-Originator: osi-ds-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; bells.cs.u.592:11.02.92.09.25.49]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk ; Wed, 11 Mar 1992 09:25:49 +0000;
From: Colin Robbins <c.robbins@xtel.co.uk>
Message-ID: <"9981 Wed Mar 11 09:25:22 1992"@xtel.co.uk>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: SOS & LDBP
I have been reading OSI-DS 26 the Lightweight Directory Browsing Protocol (LDBP) and OSI-DS 31 the Simple OSI Stack (SOS). On its own, LDBP seems a reasonable thing to do (and I have even suggested some minor improvements to the authors!) However the purpose of this mail is to ask if it is still needed in the light of SOS? As I see it the call for LDBP came from Marshall Rose's work on the DA-Protocol (dad in ISODE) and Tim Howes' work on DIXIE. Both of these provide access to the Directory using a protocol that requires much less resource than full DAP. These were developed because the was a genuine need. At the San Jose OSI-DS meeting last September, it was suggested that a unified lightweight protocol was needed, and so LDBP was developed. LDBP provides a cut down version of the X.500 DAP protocol, with a simplified form of BER encoding. ( I have a slight doubt that this is the right approach. If you are going to cut down a protocol, why not just define a profile. e.g., we'll use the X.500 DAP bind, search, modify and unbind operations only, simple authentication only, the following optional DAP fields will not be used...) SOS is a much more general than LDBP, and describes a more general lightweight approach for the full OSI stack. Appendices A and B of this document describe two example SOS nameservices protocols, based upon X.500, and something similar the LDBP could easily envisaged. So, we now have two documents describing different solutions to the same problem - the need for simplified access to the OSI directory. SOS will take longer to "hit the streets" than LDBP, it involves a lot more work. However when it arrives, there is a possibility, it will make LDBP redundant. So, it it worth spending effort on LDBP now, when the DA-Protocol and DIXIE will fill the gap until SOS arrives. Alas, I will not be at the OSI-DS meeting in San Diego, so will not be able to raise this question myself. I am not sure of the answer, but think it merits some discussion in your meeting. Colin
- SOS & LDBP Colin Robbins
- Re: SOS & LDBP Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: SOS & LDBP yeongw
- Re: SOS & LDBP Colin Robbins
- Re: SOS & LDBP yeongw
- RE: SOS & LDBP Dan Shia
- RE: SOS & LDBP Michael A. Petonic
- RE: SOS & LDBP Michael A. Petonic