[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-04.txt
- To: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-04.txt
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:30:29 -0700
- Cc: IETF ldapext WG <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009010131420.2253-100000@perq.cac.washingto n.edu>
- References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000830065524.00b48520@router.boolean.net>
At 01:54 AM 9/1/00 -0700, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>
>> This draft is pretty much ready to be progressed. However,
>> I believe the removal of CLDAP is incomplete.
>
>Aaaargh. We have been through this already. Discussion of this issue in
>June led to the inclusion of these clarifying sentences in version -03 of
>this document:
>
> "_ldap._tcp" applies to services
> compatible with LDAPv2 [7] or LDAPv3 [1]. "_ldap._udp"
> applies to services compatible with CLDAP [8].
>
>I am at a loss for why this text was dropped from version -04.
But it was dropped, hence my comment.
>But for now it's useful, it clarifies the situation, and it
>should stay (or be put back) in.
If that's the consensus of the WG, do it (now!) and progress it
(soon). It was not my intent to cause this I-D endlessly revision.
I had a point for consideration, I made it, it was considered,
let's move on.
Kurt