Re: Named Referrals Questions.

[Leonid Dubinsky <dub@shym.com>]

David Chadwick wrote:
 
> > If the only types of references supported are subordinate, superior and
> > immediate superior, the type of the reference can be determined from it's
> > location: subordinate references do not have non-reference objects
> > subordinate to them in the same server;
> 
> Whilst this is probably true for most deployments it is not true in the
> general case. Consider DIT A>B>C>D where A,B, C, D are RDNs
> and held as separate naming contexts. Say A is held in server 1, B
> in server 2, C in server 3, D in server 1
> 
> Then server 1 would hold
> 
> A entry
> B subref to 2
> C glue or subref to 3
> D entry
> 
> which negates your assumption above.
> 
> > immediate superior references do
> > not have non-reference objects superior to them in the same server;
> 
> AGAIN false in the general case, server 1 could hold
> 
> A entry
> B subref to 2
> C immed supr ref to 3
> D entry
> 
> > superior reference is stored in the root DSA.
> 
> This one we agree upon !!
> 
> David


When I asked Mark Smith this:

  A reference that is subordinate to a normal (non-reference) object and
  that, in turn, has subordinate (directly or indirectly) normal objects
  held by the same server is difficult to interpret, at least for me. It
  can be used - I think - to 'glue' together servers which hold objects
  from the same naming context: some children of an object in one
server,
  some in another. I also think that this probably was not the intent.

He answered this:

  I agree.  Perhaps that configuration should be disallowed.


My current position is: name resolution algorithm described/implied in
the "namedref" ID (and the one from the old/new "knowledge" ID) will not
be able to attribute any meaning (that I understand) to configurations
where a reference object is subordinate *and* superior (directly or
indirectly) to the non-reference objects held by the same server. It
probably can be made to work, but a lot more needs to be said about name
resolution algorithm, server confgurations and such. More importantly,
usefulness of such configurations is unclear.

Assuming that such ("reference sandwiched between normal object")
configurations are disallowed, it is true that:

  If the only types of references supported are subordinate, superior
and
  immediate superior, the type of the reference can be determined from
  it's location: subordinate references do not have non-reference
objects
  subordinate to them in the same server; immediate superior references
do
  not have non-reference objects superior to them in the same server;
  superior reference is stored in the root DSA. Thus, type of the
  reference does not need to be stored, and is not even used by the name
  resolution algorithm.

Respecfully,

Leonid Dubinsky                  Engineer
All opinions are mine, not my employer's.