[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Persistent Search

To: <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: Persistent Search
From: kervin@blueprint-tech.com
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: <rganesan-ldap@myrealbox.com>, <openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020513074208.024b19c0@127.0.0.1>
References: <ou661s9r4i.fsf@andlx-anamika.cisco.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020513074208.024b19c0@127.0.0.1>

Agreed.

But psearch would still be helpful for backward compatibility with
existing applications.
--Kervin

> Those interested in Psearch might look into implementing
> the Lightweight Client Update Protocol (LCUP) instead.  LCUP
> is intended to be a standard track replacement for persistent
> search, triggered search, and similar LDAP extensions.
> LCUP I-Ds are relatively mature, should be ready for
> LDUP WG last call soon.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-02.txt
>
> Kurt

References:
- Persistent Search
  - From: Ganesan R <rganesan-ldap@myrealbox.com>
- Re: Persistent Search
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Persistent Search
Next by Date: CA cert and ldaprc handling issues in OpenLDAP
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread