Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-01.txt - Discovering LDAP Services with DNS

[James Kempf <James.Kempf@Eng.Sun.COM>]

Ryan's draft includes a number of other techniques for locating LDAP
servers. Interoperability using them could benefit by standardization
as well. Is LDAPEXT interested in considering proposals for standarization
of other location methods?

		jak

>Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:02:10 -0800 (PST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: perq.cac.washington.edu: rlmorgan owned process doing 
-bs
>Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:01:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@cac.washington.edu>
>To: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>
>cc: Michael Armijo <micharm@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, roland@catalogix.ac.se, 
jayhawk@att.com, "'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'" <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
>Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-01.txt - Discovering LDAP  Services with 
DNS
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Resent-Message-ID: <"iduLSD.A.dOB.6xod4"@glacier>
>Resent-From: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>X-Mailing-List: <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com> 
>X-Loop: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>Resent-Sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
>
>
>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>
>> All this draft says is that if you use DC naming, you can look up the
>> appropriate LDAP server using DNS.  Is that right?  Or is there
>> something more?  If there isn't anything more, why do we need to say
>> it here. Shouldn't it go into Ryan and Roland's taxonomy draft, since
>> they already have a section (2.5) on using SRV records?
>
>Because ldapext-locate would become a Proposed Standard, and needs to be
>so to satisfy both common sense and the requirements of
>draft-ietf-dnsind-rfc2052bis-05.txt:
>
>   Applicability Statement
>
>   In general, it is expected that SRV records will be used by clients
>   for applications where the relevant protocol specification indicates
>   that clients should use the SRV record. Such specification MUST
>   define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV
>   record as described below. It also MUST include security
>   considerations. Service SRV records SHOULD NOT be used in the absence
>   of such specification.
>
>whereas the taxonomy draft will be Informational only.
>
> - RL "Bob"
>
>