Re: derefInSearching (was Re: protocol-27 comments #3)

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Jim Sermersheim writes:
> Lost. After updating with the proposed text, I didn't respond to your
> suggestions below.
>
> I agree with the first suggestion. All alias dereferencing should
> dereference recursively, and all should employ loop detection.
>
> I don't see text like "The filter is applied to the dereferenced
> object(s).". I'm not sure what you're saying here.

That text is quoted from protocol-27.  I'm not comfortable with either
the -27 or -28 text, but I have a hard time coming up with something
better.  Except that I liked the 'Aliases...' text from -27 (below).
Except again, the text is getting rather long...

>>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 12/7/04 2:01:43 PM
>
> This was either lost or ignored - maybe deservedly so. If nobody
> replies, I'll consider the issue dead. (As I note below, it still
> seems to say dereferencing the base object is not recursive, but OTOH
> I don't expect anyone to misunderstand.)
> (...)
>> I want to mix the old text with your new text, but I'm not sure how...
>>
>> Suggestions:
>>
>> Move the part about aliasing being recursive directly under
>> derefAliases. Move up 'Servers MUST detect looping...' as well.
>>
>> It was perhaps unfortunate to have 'The filter is applied to the
>> dereferenced object(s).' _before_ saying that a subtree search
>> continues, but OTOH 'Aliases in that subtree are also dereferenced'
>> seems worth keeping.

-- 
Hallvard