[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Clarification of RootDSE information retrieval required
At 09:42 AM 11/23/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>I am not sure what purpose this would serve. It is also inconsistent with
>the way other searches are made.
I think that it is actually quite consistent (see below)...
>
>If you want to retrieve specific attributes, you can simply specify them.
As currently defined, when the "*" character appears as an attribute type
name in the attributes component of a search operation, "The "*" allows the
client to request all user attributes in addition to specific operational
attributes." The point of the thread was that there was no way to retrieve
all of the operational attributes of the rootDSE object without
specifically listing them out. To me, this conundrum seems similar to the
problem that is solved by the "*" attribute type name. That's why I
suggested using another special attribute type name (namely "+"). One
problem that I thought that I heard with simply specifying the attributes
of the rootDSE that you want to retrieve, is that many DSA implementations
will add vendor specific attributes (e.g. via auxiliary object class
definitions), so that there is no way for the LDAP client to know what all
of the operational attributes of the rootDSE object are.
Bruce
>
>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
>>================================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
================================================
Bruce Greenblatt bruceg@innetix.com
http://www.innetix.com/~bruceg
================================================