Tim Howes <> Tue, 01 June 1993 19:47 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14804; 1 Jun 93 15:47 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14800; 1 Jun 93 15:47 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22135; 1 Jun 93 15:47 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 19:52:50 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 19:52:43 +0100
Received: from by (5.67/2.2) with SMTP id AA07000; Tue, 1 Jun 93 14:52:35 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Erik Huizer <>
Cc: RARE & IETF OSI-DS wg <>
Subject: Re: LDAP
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 93 17:36:47 BST." <>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 14:52:35 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Howes <>

> From:    Erik Huizer <>
> To:      RARE & IETF OSI-DS wg <>

> There are currently several RFCs at the RFC-editors desk that deal with
> Directory Services in one way or another, and that all refer to one another.
> The LDAP ones are amongst them. I cannot put pressure on Jon to go ahead an
> publish the stuff, if we don't resolve the LDAP debate.
> So let me propose a resolution. If no one objects, then I will follow this.
> If someone has problems with this I want to know that. I don't need the
> technical arguments, just: I don't agree, and an alternate solution.
> Here's my proposal:
> - We leave READ and LIST out, and require intelligent LDAP servers.
> - OSI-DS will work on a DAP implementation document to point out what is
>   required from 2nd/3rd generation DUAs (cf proposal from PAP).
> If this is acceptable then I need some input:
> - Tim Howes and Wengyik will have to confirm that all other questions from
>   Jon have been dealt with (e.g. the JPEG reference?)
> So actions:
> If you don't agree, send me mail
> If you agree, shut up
> Tim and Wengyik send me evaluation of Jon Postels questions.

Here's the status of the questions:

1) FAX format reference missing: fixed in the ldap document - added reference
   to T.4.

2) reference to string DN document: fixed by agreement - we agreed to progress
   the string DN format document simultaneously with LDAP.

3) string PADDR doc reference:  fixed by agreement - we agreed that the
   PADDR document, though informational, was stable and well-defined,
   which is all we need for a reference.

4) BNF <keystring> bug: fixed in the LDAP document - as per MTR's suggestion.

5) Error code bug (two with the same name): fixed - changed one of the names
   in the LDAP document.

6) JPEG reference: waiting to hear from Jon which of 3 alternatives I
   suggested is most appropriate:

	a) Remove the reference to JFIF/JPEG from the document (last

	b) [Get someone to] write up JFIF as an RFC and publish it
	   simultaneously with LDAP.

	c) Reference the JFIF document on the net (as JPEG seems to).

   Erik, you forwarded my mail describing these to Jon.  Have you heard
   any response yet?  I have not.

That's it.      -- Tim