RE: Revised Matched Values Draft

["Lloyd, Alan" <Alan.Lloyd@ca.com>]

We have had this debate havnt we... If you use DAP or DISP or DSP - then the
P_Layer is the ASN.1 decode/encode (C++-BER) which must be there.. Internal
representation (C++) to transfer syntax (BER)... This leaves us with the
S_Layer which in OSI terms was/is the same (almost) a every FAX machine on
this planet... But as we know the fundamental use of TLS/SSL for security in
most application protocols  - it still means we have DAP, etc over P-Layer
over SSL/TLS... So DAP over TCP is not very commercially acceptable.. is it?

OSI wasnt complex.. and now - with SSL/TLS - I think a simple stack is
"history"...Try OCSP over HTTP over SSL!

But the point is - the issue is not the stacks any more - its how one builds
large scale distributed information systems... and if the stack is complex
what label would one put on the rest of the distributed directory system
code - 

regards alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Legg [mailto:steven.legg@adacel.com.au]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 1:39 PM
To: Ramsay, Ron
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: RE: Revised Matched Values Draft



It's now part of the amendments to X.519 and X.501.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramsay, Ron [mailto:Ron.Ramsay@ca.com]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000 17:13
> To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au; 'Kurt D. Zeilenga'
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: RE: Revised Matched Values Draft
> 
> 
> You got your proposal through?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Legg [mailto:steven.legg@adacel.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000 16:33
> To: 'Kurt D. Zeilenga'
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: RE: Revised Matched Values Draft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2000 3:05
> > To: Lloyd, Alan
> > Cc: Miklos, Sue A.; Bruce Greenblatt; d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk;
> > ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> > Subject: RE: Revised Matched Values Draft
> > 
> > 
> > At 11:38 PM 7/12/00 +1000, Lloyd, Alan wrote:
> > >Isnt it amazing that the reason for LDAP was that DAP was 
> > too complex - and
> > >here we are (years later) adding more complexity to LDAP 
> > beyond that of
> > >DAP..:-)
> > > regards alan
> > 
> > The primary complexity of DAP that LDAP removed was need to 
> implement
> > the ISO protocol stack.
> 
> Even the OSI stack can be avoided now. The 2000 edition of 
> X.500 contains
> the provisions for mapping the protocols directly onto TCP/IP.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven
>  
> 
>