[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Comments on draft-ietf-ldapext-sorting



Can the wg please comment on the two comments below to me and Ned personally please? If I can get some feedback no later than Thursday the 13th, it would be appreciated and IESG can make a descision the following Thursday.

    Regards, Patrik

(sorry for the delay, but at least we ADs are at this draft now in our internal queue)

At 08.13 -0500 2000-01-25, Courtney, Scott D wrote:
I have one comment, and please pardon this nitpicky point.

In Section 6, "Security Considerations," the following phrase appears:

"Implementors and administrators should be aware that allowing sorting
of results could enable the retrieval of a large number of records from
a given directory service, irregardless of administrative limits set on
the maximum number of records to return."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe "irregardless" is a word. I
know
it's a small matter, but we might as well correct it while we have the
chance.
I suggest using the word "regardless" to avoid this double negative
non-word.

Scott

At 11.17 -0500 2000-01-25, John_Payne@motorcity2.lotus.com wrote:
Shouldn't the return error be 'inappropriateMatching' in the case where the
matching rule is inappropriate for the attribute type?  Seems to me that the
'unwilling to perform' is becoming overloaded to the point where the user will
find it very difficult to properly identify the problem.