Leif Johansson wrote:
Simple in the LDAP sense most certainly does mean less code, where it counts, in the client.A couple of lessons from the LDAP/X.500 (imvho as always):- - Simple doesn't necessary mean less code, text-based rather than 'binary' protocols, etc. The fact that you can debug your protocol by looking at tcpdump traces should not influence your design too much.
;binary? In any case, I think the text based attribute values helped fuel adoption and to a certain extent narrowed focus and expectations.- - Non-structured as opposed to structured (ASN.1, XML, etc) data is a non-issue. One of the major simplifications of LDAP was the choice to only support text-based attribute values. That is one of the major problem with LDAP today
. - - Don't make design choices before fully understanding other solutions even remotely in the same space.
Agreed.Whether you believe LDAP was too simple or not, I think it can be agreed that whatever it did, for good or bad, it got deployed widely. In the absence of LDAP I don't think x.500 would ever have achieved the same ubiquity. DIX has similar goals, simplify where it counts, make it deployable in a larger scope than current offerings.
-- Pete
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
