Tim Howes <> Tue, 08 June 1993 14:40 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05154; 8 Jun 93 10:40 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05150; 8 Jun 93 10:40 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09884; 8 Jun 93 10:40 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Tue, 8 Jun 1993 14:38:40 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Tue, 8 Jun 1993 14:37:49 +0100
Received: from by (5.67/2.2) with SMTP id AA07847; Tue, 8 Jun 93 09:34:48 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Edwards Reed <>
Subject: Re: LDAP
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jun 93 14:32:42 PDT." <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 09:34:47 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Howes <>

> From:    Edwards Reed <>
> To:,

> Should we return a "matched
> name parts" count in complement to the matched attributes? Or an alias
> indication?
> I'd vote for a matched count.  Thus, if a name
> 	/c=US/o=Xerox/ou=cin ops/pn=Edwards E Reed
> is partially matched by
> 	/c=US/o=Xerox Corporation/ou=cin ops/pn=Edward E Reed
> you would receive an error indicating the match failed (the s is
> significant), and that the matched entries were 3 (o=Xerox and 
> o=Xerox Corporation being good candicates for aliases).

It would be useful, but I don't see how we can do it.  The X.500
protocol does not support it.  Unless somebody has some good idea how
to do this?

> 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...

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