Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs

["Jong" <jongchoi@OpenLDAP.org>]

The server's knowledge on the other opaque protocols is an implementational
one
and hence needs to be treated as such in the protocol specification.
The client needs to be prepared for the server which has imprecise
information
on the other protocols, but IMHO, this seems to be outside of the protocol
specification.
- Jong

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>
To: <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Protocol: referrals and other URIs


> 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
>
>
>