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

[Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@dtasi.com>]

At 11:46 AM 7/1/99 -0400, Salter, Thomas A wrote:
>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.
>

I was just worried that this change might break some LDAP implementations.

>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.

To me it is different, given the whole partial success, and client feedback
requirements that were voiced in response to the little draft that I
posted.  In going from V2 to V3, many things were changed, and we were
expecting to cause trouble and to break applications.

>
>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.  


I agree with your point here.  I'd add that I'd lean towards using an
extended operation whenever there is more than a tiny chance of breaking an
existing LDAP implementation (server or client application)...

>
>
> > -----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
>
>
>