Re: RFC 2255bis

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> Here are some specific suggestions:
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> The abstract should note that LDAP URIs are also
> used to represent non-search operations.  They
> may be used to represent a general reference
> to a LDAP service (such as when used in LDAP
> referrals).

Okay.


> Section 3, URL parameters
> 
> When used to represent a referral (but not a search
> continuation), the attributes, scope, and filter components
> SHOULD NOT be present.  (RFC2251 should contain a statement
> regarding what to do if they are present)

Okay, but shouldn't this (also?) be noted in 2251 or its successor?  I
would argue that 2255 describes a general format; it is up to other
documents to say how it is used within a specific context.


> Section 3: scope defaulting
> 
> Suggest adding:
>  In the context of a search continuation, if scope is omitted,
>  the scope derived by the scope of the continued operation.
>  If the continued operation had scope subtree, a scope of
>  subtree shall be assumed.  Otherwise, scope base shall be
>  assumed.

Agreed.  The current statement is incorrect and misleading for search
continuations.  Perhaps we need to more clearly separate and document
the three uses we have today for LDAP URLs:

a) To represent an original LDAP search request, e.g., if I type one in
my browser URL line.

b) To return Continuation References in search results.

c) To return Referrals (in response to many types of LDAP requests).

What I am thinking about is moving some of the information about which
components of the URL are required and not allowed and the defaulting
rules into subsections that are specific to each of the above
scenarios.  Comments?

One problem I see is that I can quickly think of additional scenarios,
such as "To represent the location of an LDAP service (host, port, base
DN).


> Section 3: filter defaulting
>  Except in the context of a search referral/continuation where
>  the original filter should be reused.

See my comments above -- the same thing applies.

-Mark