[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Clarification of RootDSE information retrieval required
I'd prefer something analogous to the "*" character that can currently be
used in the attribute type list when requesting operational attributes.
Having an additional special character wouldn't change the LDAP v3
protocol. Perhaps if the attribute type list includes the special
character "+", then this would be an indication that the client is
requesting all available operational attributes for the objects matching
the search filter.
Bruce
At 02:14 PM 11/22/98 -0800, David Boreham wrote:
>
>>If this is the case then IMHO we need some sort of fast-track
>>process to identify, agree and document definitive changes which
>>are to apply to a base IETF standard such as LDAPv3 (call it an
>>Implementor's Guide?) - new RFCs should only be necessary to cover
>>major changes, e.g. introduction of LDAPv4.
>
>Such things exist. e.g. RFC2181, which clarifies
>and corrects RFC822 et al.
>
>Having one for LDAP seems like an excellent idea.
>
>Start writing !
>
>
>
>
>
================================================
Bruce Greenblatt bruceg@innetix.com
http://www.innetix.com/~bruceg
================================================