[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Clarification of RootDSE information retrieval required
Bruce,
I am not sure what purpose this would serve. It is also inconsistent with
the way other searches are made.
If you want to retrieve specific attributes, you can simply specify them.
Cheers, ....Erik.
-----------------------------------------
Erik Skovgaard
GeoTrain Corp.
LDAP & X.500 Training and Consulting
http://www.geotrain.com
At 21:44 98/11/22 -0800, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>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
>================================================
>
>
>