[Ietf-not43] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rescap-rc-01.txt]

[Eric A. Hall]

Michael Mealling wrote:

> Are there other issues you think RESCAP would need?

I only read through it once, and quickly at that. A detailed comparison to
the requirements document would take a fair bit of time, and the
requirements document itself needs a bit more work.

One thing that the LDAP angle offers over RC is that OIDs allow attribute
names to be internationalized easily, while RC relies on ASCII strings
which is less straightforward (and internationalization needs to be added
to the requirements doc, btw).

I also mentioned redirects because of:

 | 8. Differences from RC version 2

 |    RCv2 supported the notion of redirects - the ability to redirect
 |    queries for portions of URI-space - at the protocol level; this is
 |    omitted in RCv3 because they were too much trouble to use.
 |    Redirects could be implemented in RCv3 by making them ordinary
 |    attributes and by using the QUERY_RECURSE bit in queries for that
 |    attribute name.

That and some of the items listed in the open issues section seem to
suggest that this would need some more time in the oven before it could
really compete with the other options. It doesn't even have a port number
yet. But for the most part, it seems like it would work as well as any of
the other approaches, in rough scope anyway.

I can look at it in greater detail later this week.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/