IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: LDAP 3.1 Release Announcement

Paul Barker <P.Barker@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Tue, 24 January 1995 15:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02655; 24 Jan 95 10:39 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02651; 24 Jan 95 10:39 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06777; 24 Jan 95 10:39 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.02541-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:25:58 +0000
Received: from blossom.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.11912-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:25:31 +0000
To: k.rossavik@strath.ac.uk
cc: ldap-support@umich.edu, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: LDAP 3.1 Release Announcement
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Jan 95 15:09:40 GMT." <Pine.SUN.3.91.950123150726.1591Q-100000@rigel>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 13:25:22 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Barker <P.Barker@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <9501241039.aa06777@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

> Are there any disadvantages of using ldap? Or does this imply that all 
> applications using the full stack should 'upgrade' to ldap?
> 
LDAP does not offer all the functionality offered by X.500, but it gets
quite close.  For most uses, LDAP is quite sufficient, a view which is
supported by the fact that most new DUIs tend to be built over LDAP.
If you want the darker corners of X.500, then LDAP may not be adequate, but
down-grading to LDAP will suit most tastes.

Paul

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email