[Ietf-not43] call for consensus

[Patrik Fältström]

Summary: I support IRIS, and warn the group for choosing the LDAP path.

(I can do it now as I am not the AD anymore...but in this case a normal 
wg participant.)

It is not even the case I have "more positive feelings for IRIS". I 
even have negative feelings for LDAP due to things which go from the 
fact it is hard with ethereal to see what is going on in the protocol, 
via schema discovery issues to the hierarchal structure which is strict 
in LDAP  itself even if you have referrals in later versions of LDAP. 
We do not have a global LDAP deployment in the world for what I think 
are these reasons.

LDAP works extremely well in a closed environment where the same 
organisation (or cooperation of organisations) control all clients and 
servers, but to get LDAP to work globally one do have problems.

On 10 sep 2003, at 14.51, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> Saying "we'll use XML" means we don't have to argue ad nauseum about 
> how to express line breaks in the data v. linebreaks in the protocol, 
> and other escaping wonderments.
>
> (Do I sound scarred by the Whois++ experience?  Sorry, Patrik!).

No, you show experience from Whois++ which was so simple to implement 
and expand just because of the expandability where the LDAP 
schema-equivalence was not needed -- but on the other hand you remember 
the discussions between LDAP and Whois++ people as well as I.

> I think FIRS is an awesome effort, and has interesting
> technical features in its use of LDAP.  I just don't think it's the
> right answer to this WGs chartered problem.

I can not say it better myself.

     paf