Re: Extensibility of SearchRequest.attributes

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

Yes, here are some examples of special attributes:

Attribute        Meaning
"*"              All User Attrs (P-S RFC)
"+"              All Operational Attrs (S-T I-D)
"+"<classname>   All Attributes of an object class (I-T I-D)
"*;lang-"<xx>    All User Attrs with lang-xx (no spec yet on
remaining)
"@"<uri>         All Attrs listed at uri
"*MCSN>"<csnval> All User Attrs who's mod CSN is greater than that
specified
"*Len<"<len>     All User Attr val's less than len octets
"^"              No virtual attributes
"^^"             No collective attributes
"$"              Only static (no dynamically calculated) attributes
":-("            Attributes with deleted/unpurged values
"+dirOp"         All directoryOperation operational
"+distOp"        All distributedOperation operational
"+dsaOp"         All dsaOperation operational
"#"<syntaxOID>   All attributes belonging to specified syntax

Obviously, there are many (inconsistent) ways to express these, and
there are no guidelines or instructions to those who want to create new
special attributes but don't want to collide with special attributes
being defined by other people.

Jim

>>> Mark C Smith <mcs@netscape.com> 4/3/03 12:07:48 PM >>>
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> I believe this data type needs to be re-defined in the LDAPBis work,
and
> I believe there needs to be a more formal way of extending it with
> "special" values.
> 
> Currently (in both RFC 2251, and LDAPBis work), this data type does
not
> allow the string "*" (or the proposed "+" for that matter). Both
> specifications restrict it to a list of attribute descriptions. An
> attribute description must either be a numeric oid, or begin with a
> alpha. Yet both have "special wording" like: "There are two special
> values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and the
> attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that all
user
> attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client to request
all
> user attributes in addition to any specified operational
attributes).".
> Another proposal furthers this and allows "+" to indicate that all
> operational attributes are to be returned, and other proposals for
other
> special strings are in the works.

Can you provide some examples? I am generally in favor of allowing for

extensions in many areas, but I am not convinced we need to allow it in

this specific area.

-Mark