Re: LDAP Comments

Christian Huitema <> Mon, 17 May 1993 16:54 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00981; 17 May 93 12:54 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00977; 17 May 93 12:54 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08573; 17 May 93 12:53 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Mon, 17 May 1993 15:33:26 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Mon, 17 May 1993 15:33:17 +0100
Received: by (5.65c/IDA-1.2.8) id AA22964; Mon, 17 May 1993 16:34:08 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: Steve Kille <>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <>,,
Subject: Re: LDAP Comments
In-Reply-To: Your message of "16 May 93 12:31:17 BST." <1355.737551877(l)a(r)>
Date: Mon, 17 May 93 16:34:07 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Christian Huitema <>


As much as I like to disagree with you, I don't believe we disagree in this
case. I advanced that LIST and "search one level etc." are not stricto sensu
equivalent, as one accesses the content of the entry while the other does not,
and you replied that this particular search could be implemented with
essentially the same resources than LIST -- by recognizing automatically that
the filter is always true. I think both propositions are correct. In any case,
I do agree with you that using LIST is a bad idea in general. For one think, it
enforces the very part of X.500 that I dislike most -- the hierarchical

Having exactly one access operation in LDAP is a fine design. The fact that it
may slightly depart from the CCITT/ISO spec has about zero importance.

Christian Huitema