Re: Chaining vs Referrals ?? -Reply

Colin Robbins <> Mon, 26 February 1996 17:30 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23258; 26 Feb 96 12:30 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23254; 26 Feb 96 12:30 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10654; 26 Feb 96 12:30 EST
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:28:29 +0000
Received: from by with UK SMTP id <>; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:28:09 +0000
Received: from by with SMTP (MMTA) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:23:54 +0000
To: Ed Reed <>
Subject: Re: Chaining vs Referrals ?? -Reply
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 24 Feb 1996 12:20:14 -0800. <s12f080a.007@fromGW>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:23:35 GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Colin Robbins <>
Message-ID: <9602261230.aa10654@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

   >From a performance standpoint, the chaining model can, but may not,
   >afford superior cache support at the DSA, particularly if many DUAs
   >regularly access the same portions of the tree and can share cached
   >results of their queries. 

Alas, with the X.500(93) access control model, caching within a DSA is
very hard to do, as the access control information is not carried with
the data over DSP.  Consequently, the role of a DSA cache is severly
limited, if allowed at all.