[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-referral-00.txt
Colin, in answer to your Q may I suggest quickly :-)
regards alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Robbins [SMTP:Colin.Robbins@nexor.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 9:13 PM
> To: Tim Howes; 'D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk'
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-referral-00.txt
>
> David Chadwick[SMTP:d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ok. I propose we do not support NSSRs. Does anybody
> > > really think we should? If so, why? -- Tim
> > >
> > >
> > I am happy to drop them. I think that NSSRs are a performance
> killer,
> > and for this reason alone should be dropped, let alone the
> complexity
> > issue.
> >
>
> I agree. NSSRs in X.500 are a nightmare, and I am not aware of any
> situation where
> they have been used (even though NEXORs own product supports them).
> Most X.500 profiles I have seen, suggest NSSRs should not be used.
>
> Assuming we do drop them in LDAP, how do we now get X.500 to drop
> them :-)
>
> Colin