Re: LDAP documents

Henri Altarac <haltarac@rain.org> Fri, 11 November 1994 08:59 UTC

Original-Received: by coyote.rain.org(4.1/SMI-RAIN) with id AA15598 for osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk on Thu, 10 Nov 94 23:13:55 PST
PP-warning: Illegal Received field on preceding line
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 23:13:54 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Henri Altarac <haltarac@rain.org>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, ietf-asid@umich.edu
Subject: Re: LDAP documents
In-Reply-To: <199411102036.PAA19127@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941110225906.12914C-100000@coyote.rain.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

A few comments on the new LDAP :

Shouldn't the changes in the modrdn request imply a new protocol version ?

Why not make the new element 'deleteoldrdn' an optional component so
a server can transparently handle both old and new clients (with/without 
deleteoldrdn).

Since LDAP is changing, I would like to see the search filters encoded
as strings as described in RFC1558. LDAP servers already have
to decode search guides which are string encoded and look a lot like 
the search filters. Is there any reason why the search filters are more 
in the spirit of DAP rather than LDAP ?


-----
Henri Altarac		haltarac@rain.org

LDAP documents Tim Howes
Re: LDAP documents Henri Altarac