Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs

[John McMeeking <jmcmeek@us.ibm.com>]

I view the existing wording as an attempt to leave the door open for some
as yet unknown alternative URI and tell client implementors that they
should be prepared to handle it -- or at least deal with an unsupported
format more gracefully than they might have otherwise.

In that context, I think the existing language is fine.


John  McMeeking



                                                                                                                               
                      highlandsun@highlandsun.prop                                                                             
                      agation.net                         To:       ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org, jimse@novell.com                
                      Sent by:                            cc:                                                                  
                      owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.        Subject:  Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs                     
                      org                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                               
                      11/12/2003 10:35 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