RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-02.txt

[Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>]

At 01:09 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Paul Leach (Exchange) wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 9:53 AM
>
><snip>
>
>> It is really just a matter of style.
>

So, this is the only thing that I said that you agree with?

>Agreed. But since we have _significant_ operational experience with the
>proposed style, and since you agree is just a matter of style, why not the
>proposed style?
>

If that were the case, we'd have standardized on [insert your favorite lame
deployed directory service here]...  The question is, do you really think
that implementing a delete subtree is best implemented as a control?  It
seems so obvious to me that it isn't the best implementation.  If you were
to have to change the definition from a yet to be standardized control to a
yet to be standardized extended operation, what do you believe the impact
would be on your product?

Bruce

>Paul
>
>
>
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com