Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.234 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=GS1ZdFnqhRuqkVWPxJrDQAsEsyZbIvtBQNhJqukE2g9V+cebbNtHWDTz4B3Y7RyNsND7RRetaVznDnPFc9P1rkml85ditr2XReziPRpxlvftCZ8SJmwtEhfHd7e1T27UnX8uSbs5pNqVrIzG89PlTl/W74hpwFen8I7HwVdvVVw=
Message-ID: <d45b08f00709211616x7f7f5fb4td30e83f3cc124e0d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:16:31 +0200
From: "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@iktek.com
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [ApacheDS] Specifying application level subtrees?
In-Reply-To: <800df6390709211548y4558cfc6m7e4a8facba66ae1f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <a32f6b020709201642p4fdbc0f9k7986a986e64ed609@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a1b4a6610709202331u1e8faddboddd7d419bb95013e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a32f6b020709210940p13dc2b98k40158673018d399f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <800df6390709211011q5bdef748xcc628ccee0029829@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a32f6b020709211047p230381car3a854d024516d637@mail.gmail.com>
	 <800df6390709211321j2990c99dhca28eff429195883@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a32f6b020709211354t8ed6e1dj3ac1e87b0474b9e6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <800df6390709211548y4558cfc6m7e4a8facba66ae1f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marc, Alex,

just a small comment in the body
> > IMO LDAP was too lightweight in an adverse reaction to the
> > OSI
> > weight of X.500.  So now people realize we have to embrace X.500 concep=
ts
> > and in particular the admin model.  Lookie here ..
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3672.txt
> >
>
> OK, so this is starting to get really philosophical but I think LDAP
> is just fine.  LDAP is a directory ACCESS protocol.

LDAP _was_ a directory access protocol. It's not anymore the case. Do
you know any X.500 server around there? We are all working on an world
of LDAP servers, not on a world of people using LDAP protocol on top
of X.500 servers. let's fact the fact : LDAP servers need to evolve
now.

How that
> directory is implemented shouldn't matter.  As a matter of practice I
> prefer simple to complex.  There are many good things about X.500
> (which are the roots of virtual directories), but I don't think we
> should confuse the access protocol and the implementation protocol.

The LDAP RFCs aren't confusing the protocol itself and the
implementation. if you read carefully all those RFCs (4511 to 4520),
the sentence 'implementors should ...' is all over them.

There is no more difference between Protocol and the implementation.
It's over. Let's move to LDAP V4 now !

--=20
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L=E9charny
www.iktek.com