[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: ModifyDN -- subtrees or not?

Hi -

This issue has been discussed in depth in the ietf-ldapbis thread archived at http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200108/threads.html#00025. I am now adding to this thread at the request of the Directory Interoperability Forum, to point out the problems that arise due to lack of clarity in RFC 2251 regarding which elements of the protocol must be supported.

The idea that a server may arbitrarily respond to a request or not is, to put it mildly, not very helpful to the application developer. How can anyone write an application that can can run with any directory without regard to the supplier, if different suppliers are allowed to implement different subsets of functionality, which may or may not be adequate for the application in question?

If you then say that you don't know whether this idea is correct or not, you make the situation very confusing.

This is particularly so as the words "a server will attempt to perform" in RFC 2251 seem on the face of it specifically to rule out the result "unwillingToPerform".

The server certification program defined by the DIF - The Open Brand for LDAP 2000 - requires all features of the protocol not specifically indicated as optional to be implemented. This is based on the assumption that they are required by the RFC, as per the above wording. However the DIF is very concerned to interpret the IETF RFCs on which its work is based correctly. If its assumptions are not correct, then its conclusions must be reappraised.

It is within the scope of the ldapbis group to remove the confusion, and the directory community is looking to the ldapbis group to do so. The charter of ldapbis is to deliver revised LDAPv3 specifications suitable for consideration as a Draft Standard, and the wording of these revised specifications should leave absolutely no room for doubt as regards conformance requirements for LDAP servers and applications.

Meanwhile, bearing in mind the time needed for documents to reach Draft Standard status, it would be valuable to have a formal statement of interpretation from the IETF on this point in the near future. Is there a way in which this can be done?

Regards,

Chris
+++++

========================================================================
           Dr. Christopher J. Harding
  T H E    Executive Director for the Directory Interoperability Forum
 O P E N   Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
G R O U P  Mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org Phone:  +44 118 950 8311 x2262
           WWW: http://www.opengroup.org Mobile: +44 774 063 1520
========================================================================
The Open Group Conference October 2001 - featuring
ACTIVE LOSS PREVENTION - Establishing Trust and Risk Management in eBusiness
Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22-26 October 2001
http://www.opengroup.org/amsterdam2001
========================================================================