Re: Clarification of RootDSE information retrieval required

[Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaard@geotrain.com>]

Bruce,

You are still not getting it.

Why do we need a wildcard at all?  When I go and read user attributes, I do
not have to supply one.

The *only* possible use would be to pick up operational attributes from
user entries, but we are talking about the rootDSE here.  It does not have
any user attributes, so why define a new way of retrieving all attributes
from this particular entry?

Cheers,                    ....Erik.

------------------------------------
Erik Skovgaard
GeoTrain Corp.
The PSC Group
Directory Engineering Services
http://www.geotrain.com

At 13:27 98/11/23 -0800, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>Erik,
>
>You're right that there is no particular reason to restrict the use of this
>new wildcard character to the rootDSE object.  It seems like there are
>other objects that might well have numerous operational attributes available.
>
>Bruce
>
>At 01:19 PM 11/23/98 -0800, Erik Skovgaard wrote:
>>Bruce,
>>
>>Yes, I am aware of the reason for this discussion.
>>
>>The purpose of my comment was to point out that you do not specify any
>>wildcard character when you retrieve other entries.  Why make the rootDSE
>>any different?
>>
>>Cheers,                   ....Erik.
>>
>>-----------------------------------
>>Erik Skovgaard
>>GeoTrain Corp.
>>Enterprise Directory Training and Consulting
>>http://www.geotrain.com
>>
>>At 12:19 98/11/23 -0800, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>>>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
>>>================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>================================================
>Bruce Greenblatt              bruceg@innetix.com
>http://www.innetix.com/~bruceg
>================================================
>
>
>