I agree that defining a translation would be useful, but it's not
actaully required, is it? Say I have an XRI for "@foo.bar" and then I
want to make an LDAP query about a distinguished name at the endpoint
identified by "@foo.bar". In that case I don't have to express that
distinguished name as an XRI, I just need to know is that LDAP is a
supported local access protocol at that endpoint, yes?
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwac...@visa.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:32 PM
To: Drummond Reed; XRI Editors (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] LDAP or DSML as local access protocol
Well, thats OK, but there a bit of work to do. We have to define how a
XRI gets translated into a LDAP or DSML query. This is not a
straightforward process, and there are probably a multitude of ways to
do it (an LDAP query is *structured* and I'm not sure how that structure
Does someone have a proposal for how to do this in a flexible way?
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drum...@onename.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:12 PM
To: XRI Editors (E-mail)
Subject: [xri-editors] LDAP or DSML as local access protocol
Gabe, I forgot that one of my notes in first reading the resolution
section was why LDAP or DSML wasn't included as an option
as a local access protocol? This is in relation to 3.2.2 an 3.4.