Subject: Re: protocol: strongAuthRequired

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:32:41 -0700

It seems consensus is to go ahead with the name change unless anyone else can substantiate harm in doing so.
 
Jim

>>> Mark Smith <[email-masked]> 12/10/04 7:33:37 AM >>>
Michael Ströder wrote:
>
> Are you aware that this could lead to a name change in various existing 
> LDAP client APIs?
> 
> Therefore I'm against such a name change although the name change would 
> make the meaning more clear.

I think most API implementations would keep the old name around (at 
least for a while) and also support the new name. Or is that a problem 
for some API implementations? There is some benefit to changing the 
name in the protocol (minor though it is).

-Mark