Re: LDAP Comments

Alan Shepherd <> Fri, 07 May 1993 09:56 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01106; 7 May 93 5:56 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01102; 7 May 93 5:56 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03455; 7 May 93 5:56 EDT
X400-Received: by mta in / 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Wed, 5 May 1993 17:48:10 +0100
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 17:48:10 +0100
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/ 400/C=gb/; haig.cs.uc.943:]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: ; Wed, 5 May 1993 17:48:10 +0100;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Alan Shepherd <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: "":
Subject: Re: LDAP Comments

In your message you said:
> > From: Alan Shepherd <>
> > 
> > this issue has come up before and it may well be the case that the
> > quipu implementation is lacking (side-issue and I don't want to
> > discuss it here), but I'm fairly sure that the X.500 standard says
> > that DSAs should be able to cope with the sort of search that PAP
> > doesn't like.  It doesn't at the moment and I expect that every
> > implementation has its own set of problems, but sooner or later, I
> > think that you are going to have to stop dissuading every from doing
> > searches on pizarro DSAs and make them work better !
> > 
> > Alan
> Sorry Alan, 
> I regret you seem to be hurt by my message, but the case is not
> to defend or attack a product
>   but to help/inform users of X.500 services, about some important issues
>   AND 
>   help developers (including NeXOR) getting caught into 	
> 	developing solutions with uncertain future, for their
> 	own sake

Sorry PAP !  In my tersity I think I have misled you into thinking
that I am annoyed about your remarks about QUIPU.  I am not in the
slightest and I can see you have valid points about security etc and
so QUIPU quite probably does need to change.  My point was merely that
the search is a valid X.500 operation and it is unreasonable to expect
every DUA implementor/user to not use it just because pizarro can't
cope very well.  Maybe Quipu needs to change, but I think pizarro does

I don't really see it as an issue along the lines of Quipu does it
well and pizarro doesn't so pizarro needs to change, just that there
will be many people writing duas and you will find it quite a hard and
awesome task persuading them all not to invoke searches on pizarro
DSAs.  This is completely independent of QUIPU.

> 2. We (my team) are being funded within PARADISE by CEC DGXIII to take
> care of interoperability in an heterogeneous environement.
> That is taking into account plenty od implementations such as
> Siemens Dir.X, Marben and many more.
>   You should have noted that I have been careful at not limiting to
>   pizarro, even avoiding as much as possible using the name, and 
>   giving a generic view.

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticise you either about pizarro in
particular, but in a generic viewpoint as I indicated above, I still
think that since searches are valid operations *all* implementations
should cope with them.

Alan Shepherd, NeXor Ltd., University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD.
Email:, Phone: +44 (0) 602 514591 (Fax:790278)
X.400: C=GB;ADMD=mark400;PRMD=NeXor;O=NeXor;S=Shepherd;G=Alan
X.500: C=GB@O=NeXor Ltd@CN=Alan Shepherd

 Please note that NeXor Ltd was previously known as X-Tel Services Ltd.