Re: Supported RFC's and "features"

[Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>]

Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> writes:

> I suppose we need to update our published roadmap. I don't consider SSS
> or VLV to be particularly important or well-designed features. In fact
> OpenLDAP has an RFC-compliant implementation of SSS which is a pure
> no-op; this is perfectly compliant because the SSS spec is so utterly
> useless in real directories. Since VLV requires SSS, it is IMO equally
> useless or at least seriously flawed, and I have a strong aversion to
> implementing flawed designs. (Never mind all the other flawed designs
> we're forced to live with already...)

It might be worth noting that, depending on your application and the
provenance of the data, the valsort overlay may actually be what you want
rather than server-side sorting.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>