Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs

["Mark Smith" <markcsmithwork@aol.com>]

Jim Sermersheim wrote on 11/12/2003, 11:06 AM:

 > ...
 > I don't think it is within the charter to modify the format of a
 > referral such that operation-specific knowledge can be built into them.
 >
 > Thus, I suggest this be dropped or reworded. I can't think of wording
 > that allows "any URI to be returned, regardless of its protocol's
 > ability to perform all operations" that wouldn't just remove the need
 > for the statement. So I suggest dropping it.

I am not sure, but one of the original reasons for including the 
statement was probably to ensure some amount of "service integrity" in 
the sense that we do not want URIs to be returned that just won't work 
(because that will be a mess from an interoperability point of view). 
But one could certainly argue that implementations that use non-LDAP 
URIs are unlikely to interoperate in the absence of a clear 
specification.  So dropping the text you want to drop is OK with me, 
given the lack of value it really adds.

-Mark