Leif Johansson wrote:
I don't want to bog down this list with this, so I'll just say that client responsibilities are much lower in LDAP than in x.500.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1Simple in the LDAP sense most certainly does mean less code, where it counts, in the client.Measured how exactly?
That is noted :) I was just making the point that simple but widely deployed is sometimes (usually?) better than complex and not widely deployed. Even if down the road you may need to revise some things to address new areas of interest, at least you have something to do it with.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.And I am trying to put it across to the dix community that there is value in simplification but not in over-simplification. LDAP did not represent the optimal simplification. Learning from LDAP (and similar cases) might help dix achieve wide deployment *and* long life.
-- Pete
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
