Re: Feature discovery (Was: RFC 2596 questions)

[kgdaniec@us.ibm.com]

Jim wrote:
Whatever the discovery mech is, I'd rather we have it and be  rarely used
than not have it at all. Also, some things (like attr type options)  need
more than just an OID in a list. We need to specify where they can be used
(which attrs or syntaxes support them).

Doesn't this imply then that support of the attribute tags should be
discovered as part of schema discovery?

Karen

Internet: kgdaniec@us.ibm.com
Internal: Karen Gdaniec/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or
                 IBMUSM10(KGDANIEC)
phone: 607.752.1075   tie-line: 8/852-1075
fax: 607.752.3681
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Gdaniec/Endicott/IBM on
09/15/2000 04:57 PM ---------------------------

"Jim Sermersheim" <JIMSE@novell.com> on 09/15/2000 04:33:17 PM

To:   <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
Subject:  Re: Feature discovery (Was: RFC 2596 questions)




Whatever the discovery mech is, I'd rather we have it and be  rarely used
than not have it at all. Also, some things (like attr type options)  need
more than just an OID in a list. We need to specify where they can be used
(which attrs or syntaxes support them).

Jim


>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 9/15/00  2:01:22 PM >>>
At 07:18 AM 9/15/00 -0400, hahnt@us.ibm.com  wrote:
>Should we investigate some additional rootDSE attribute to  indicate the
set of attribute descriptions that are supported?  Further,  when a new
attribute description is defined, should we be assigning OIDs and  keeping
these as an additional part of the subschemasubentry data?

I  wouldn't mind too much having one attribute type "supportedFeatures"  of
syntax OID which listed "supported" features.  This could include  MAYs and
SHOULDs from the "core" specification as well as any MAY, SHOULD,  MUST of
any extension.  This would provide a discovery mechanism for any  feature
you might want to publish support for.

However, I wonder the  value of providing additional discovery mechanisms
when the discovery  mechanisms we already provide are rarely used and,
in some cases, not needed  or inappropriate to use.  [Discovery of StartTLS
is not needed,  discovery of SASL mechanisms is inappropriate without
appropriate  consideration of security risks].

Kurt