Skip to main content

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Transactions
RFC 5805

Yes


No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Robert Sparks)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment (2009-12-16)
What's experimental about this protocol extension and why is it on the independent stream rather than going for PS?
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2009-12-04)
>3.5. Miscellaneous Issues
>
>  Transactions cannot be nested.

Can you clarify what you mean here?
Do you mean that the client can't issue several Transaction Start commands in a row (on a single LDAP association)?

>5. Distributed Directory Considerations
>
>  This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side
>  chasing.  Transaction identifiers are specific to a particular LDAP
>  association (as established via the LDAP Bind operation).

Just to double check: does this mean that transaction identifiers can't be reused on other LDAP connections and that they don't have to be globally unique?

>10.2. Informative References
>
>  [DONTUSECOPY] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP Don't Use Copy Control", draft-
>                zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy-xx.txt, a work in progress.

Expired?
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2009-12-17)
I support Adrian's DISCUSS. I believe that this document is very useful and that Experimental is the right status for it, and for these reasons I would like to see the conditions of the experiment and the criteria for success clearly defined.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2009-12-17)
  I think the section in the write-up labelled "IESG Note" should be
  labelled "Note to RFC Editor".  The intent is not to put the text
  in that section into the document.