Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs

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

Howard,
 
For an implementation to conform to the protocol specification, it must
understand and correctly implement the specification. If there is
language that forces a server to do something it cannot do, that's a
problem.
 
If my interpretation is muddy, then the wording needs to change,
because it is not only me who is interpreting it that way.

Do you have alternate wording which captures the intent of this
statement while allowing non-LDAP protocols to be specified in referral
URIs?
 
Jim

>>> <highlandsun@highlandsun.propagation.net> 11/12/03 10:35:23 AM >>>
>All,
> 
>There is the following text regarding referral URIs in the protocol
>document:
>"Other kinds of URIs may be returned, so long as the operation could
be
>performed using that protocol."
>
>It's quite likely (actually, it's a reality) that a protocol could
>exist which allows some directory operations (like add, modify, and
>search), but not others (like modDN).
>Even when one considers this language a certain way, two LDAP servers
>may not both support the same extended operation.

What the protocol defines and what a particular server implementation
supports are two very different things. Your interpretation is
muddying
the details needlessly.
-- Howard