Subject: RE: draft-mmeredith-rootdse-vendor-info-02.txt

From: "Sukanta Ganguly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:49:36 -0700

It is very difficult and unclear at this point whether we should assume that all Internet Directory Client are in the position to talk different Internet protocols. Instead of assuming that the Directory Client will talk SNMP and query the MIB for getting the vendor specific information, why can't we state that the Directory Client queries the rootDSE for the information and the implementation would determine whether to go to the SNMP MIB for the information or to have the vendor specific information, requested by Mark, within the Directory Repository.

I think it will bring in more value to have the access to the information through the rootDSE but at the same time leave the invididual implementations to handle them. We all agree, based on the emails that I have seen flowing around related to this matter, that the information is useful so why not provide the flexibility.

Thanks
Sukanta Ganguly
[email-masked]

>>> Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]> 02/18/00 09:32AM >>>
At 09:13 AM 2/18/00 -0500, Peter Strong wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To be blunt, I don't believe that there is much use for this draft.
>
>For those of us who attempt to build applications that work with
>multiple directory implementations, this information is very useful.
>

The information may be useful.  I never said that it wasn't.  I said that
it's already available someplace else.  Get it from there, since that is
already a standards track RFC.  I don't see much point in duplicating this
information.  In my opinion, a good internet directory client will get
information from a variety of internet servers: DNS, LDAP, SNMP, and others.

>> The information that it proposes to add to the Root DSE is already
>> published is
>> already available from SNMP if the LDAP server conforms to RFC 2248.  The
>> applVersion field of the MIB is useful here.  I think that this draft
>> should just point to RFC 2248 (and perhaps 2605) and explain where the
>> vendor information should be placed.  These are already standards track
>> documents, and have places to put the information that this draft defines.
>> (Just my $0.02 worth)
>
>The products we build are LDAP clients, not SNMP clients.
>
>This information should be available via LDAP.
>
>>
>>  Bruce
>> ==============================================
>> Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>> Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>> http://www.directory-applications.com
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Strong
>Software Architect
>Nortel Networks - Optivity Policy Services (OPS) and NetID
>[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>(613) 831-6615
>
>
>
>
>
>
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com

---

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:31:35 -0800

I understand that you don't want to look the information up in SNMP.  But,
why not?  It's already there, and SNMP is pretty lightweight (simple even).
 Do we really want to duplicate this vendor information in several places?
It could just as easily be added to SRV records in DNS?  What about all of
the other informaiton in RFC 2248 and RFC 2605?  Do you want to plop that
into the RootDSE as well?

Bruce

At 10:49 AM 2/18/00 -0700, Sukanta Ganguly wrote:
>   It is very difficult and unclear at this point whether we should assume 
>that all Internet Directory Client are in the position to talk different 
>Internet protocols. Instead of assuming that the Directory Client will talk
>SNMP  and query the MIB for getting the vendor specific information, why
>can't we  state that the Directory Client queries the rootDSE for the
>information and the  implementation would determine whether to go to the
>SNMP MIB for the information  or to have the vendor specific information,
>requested by Mark, within the  Directory Repository.   I think it will
>bring in more value to have the access to the information  through the
>rootDSE but at the same time leave the invididual implementations to 
>handle them. We all agree, based on the emails that I have seen flowing
>around  related to this matter, that the information is useful so why not
>provide the  flexibility.   Thanks Sukanta Ganguly [email-masked]
>
>>>><>>>>
>   I said that
>  Get it from there, since that  is
>  I don't see much point in duplicating  this
>  In my opinion, a good internet directory client will  get
>>>  The
>>>  I think that this draft
>>>  These are already standards  track
>><>