[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Details on TCP sequence numbers (RE: C API: minor comments)
- To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand' <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Kurt D. Zeilenga'" <kurt@boolean.net>, Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Subject: RE: Details on TCP sequence numbers (RE: C API: minor comments)
- From: "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:26:10 -0800
- Cc: "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, mcs@netscape.com, howes@yahoo.com, "Andy Herron (Exchange)" <andyhe@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "Anoop Anantha (Exchange)" <anoopa@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, kurt@OpenLDAP.Org, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:26:54 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <"jLAWY.A.A-B.FZfM4"@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 4:56 PM
>
> For unauthenticated CLDAP - yes.
>
> I still say it does not matter in the present batch of specs.
I'll agree with that. My expectation was that the LDAP API would be usable
pretty much as is for CLDAP, too. Maybe some small mods.
BTW: if the design weren't so far along, I'd have the API _return_ the ID it
used, instaed of having the caller assign them.
Paul