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

Re: Specifying non-tcp transports referrals

To: Jim Sermersheim <jimse@novell.com>
Subject: Re: Specifying non-tcp transports referrals
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:19 -0500
Cc: mcs@netscape.com, Steve McLain <SMCLAIN@novell.com>, Tom Doman <TDoman.PRV-1.PROVO@novell.com>, ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <sefae9e6.075@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
References: <sefae9e6.075@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

on 6/26/2003 1:39 PM Jim Sermersheim wrote:

>>The only well defined transport for LDAP is TCP. So I just assume that
>>LDAP URLs must use TCP as a transport too. Are you saying that is too
>>limiting?
> 
> I'm just saying that it's under specified or ambiguous (I actually
> don't know if LDAP URLs can be used to specify transports other than
> TCP--I'd like it to be able to).

I've changed my mind on this and agree with Jim. I think that the proper
way to specify transports is to extend the hostport syntax to allow for
transport.port or transport/port whatever is necessary, with [tcp] being
the default when a transport is not explicitly declared.

This approach would allow a single URL to specify multiple transports, and
would preserve the transport/protocol mapping. It also preserves the
authority that "valid" transports are defined by the LDAP service and not
by URLs.

This can be synchronized with SRV with the right text. eg, ~"use the
scheme name and the transport to determine the SRV labels".

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-01.txt
Next by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread