Subject: what are the server guys doing?

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:03:36 -0700

I'm sitting here watching the discussion on attribute sub-typing, and 
trying (without any success) to figure when I'd ever need an entry that had 
numerous subtypes within a single attribute.  Can someone give me a good 
example of when a single LDAP entry would need one attribute with lots of 
subtypes present?  It seems to me that this is going in a different 
direction that I'd like to see.  As an LDAP application developer, I'm more 
interested in seeing other features added on the server side.   I can make 
do without the sub-type stuff, but I really need to be able to selectively 
delete a sub-tree.

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in finding out if anyone that 
builds a server has any plans on supporting any recently defined extensions 
(controls or extended operations).  For example:

LDAP Authentication Response Control  (draft)
LDAP Proxied Authentication Control  (draft)
LDAP Controls for Reply Signatures (draft)
Returning Matched Values with LDAPv3  (draft)
LDAP Control for a Duplicate Entry Representation of Search Results (draft)
LDAP Tree Delete Control (draft)
LDAP Client Update Protocol (draft)
Simple Operations on Subtrees (for LDAP) (draft)
An LDAP Control and Schema for Holding Operation Signatures (RFC 2649)

I've probably missed a few that have been defined.  I'm very interested in 
encouraging extension development.  As far as I can tell, there is very 
little activity in this area, but I'd like to hear differently.  I'm 
expecting deafening silence in response, but am hopefully of hearing some 
noise!  I'm sure that there would be plenty of interested beta testers...

Thanks,

Bruce

==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See my new Book on Internet Directories: 
http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:54:19 -0600

Bruce,

The problem is, when one tries to implement language tags (an RFC of the ldapext WG) on the server, they run into all sorts of unanswered questions and underspecified, or even conflicting requirements. I don't think the goal is to specifically implement support for an entry with numerous subtypes within a single attribute. I think people are just trying to implement language tags in a correct and consistent manner.

Though we'd like to implement many of the drafts listed below, we feel more urgency to implement language tags now. We don't want to just throw a solution together and get onto the next extension before we feel assured of interoperability.

Jim

>>> Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]> 10/2/00 5:04:42 PM >>>

Thanks,

Bruce

---

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:29:45 -0700

OK.  I got the response that I expected.  LDAP Server vendors are not 
planning on implementing any new extensions.  Other than this language tag 
thing (which I see virtually no use for), what is going on is nothing.

Bruce

At 04:54 PM 10/2/2000, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>The problem is, when one tries to implement language tags (an RFC of the 
>ldapext WG) on the server, they run into all sorts of unanswered questions 
>and underspecified, or even conflicting requirements. I don't think the 
>goal is to specifically implement support for an entry with numerous 
>subtypes within a single attribute. I think people are just trying to 
>implement language tags in a correct and consistent manner.
>
>Though we'd like to implement many of the drafts listed below, we feel 
>more urgency to implement language tags now. We don't want to just throw a 
>solution together and get onto the next extension before we feel assured 
>of interoperability.
>
>Jim
>
><http://www.directory-applications.com>http://www.directory-applications.com
><http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html>http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 11:28:37 -0600

What we're planning on doing, and what we're doing right now may be two different things. BTW, we're largely market-dirven, as I would imagine most directory vendors are. That might account for server vendors implementing technology that is needed before technology that is cool. Language tags are a highly requested technology outside the U.S.

>>> Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]> 10/6/00 5:29:45 PM >>>
OK.  I got the response that I expected.  LDAP Server vendors are not planning on implementing any new extensions.  Other than this language tag thing (which I see virtually no use for), what is going on is nothing. 

Bruce

Bruce,

 
Jim

Thanks,

Bruce

See my new Book on Internet Directories: http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html