RE: LDAP Tree Delete Control - draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-01.tx t

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

I think if you take that position to an extreme, you'll never use controls
for anything.  The RFCs should specify explicitly what every form of an
operation will do.  A control by its very nature changes (and thus
contradicts) that.

In this case, changing delete into delete tree feels (to me) like a natural
use for a control.  It's a lot like the change of ModifyRDN into ModifyDN
that happened from V2 to V3.

I guess the actual choice between control and an extended operation is more
art than science.  I'd lean towards using a control whenever the parameters
work out 'nicely' and the function is about the same.  


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@dtasi.com]
 > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 12:06 AM
 > To: Michael Armijo (Exchange); 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'
 > Subject: RE: LDAP Tree Delete Control -
 > draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-01.txt
 > 
 > 
 > I certainly understand the text of the draft.  I'm pointing 
 > out that I was
 > reluctant to create a control that explicitly contradicts 
 > the operation to
 > which it is intended to be attached.  RFC 2251 is certainly 
 > silent on the
 > issue of what a control may do (at least there is nothing obvious in
 > 4.1.12).  I'd just be cautious in this instance in creating 
 > a control that
 > appears to allow the delete operation to contradict the protocol
 > specification.  What's the advantage in using a control for 
 > this versus an
 > extended operation?
 > 
 > Bruce