RE: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries

["Volpers, Helmut" <helmut.volpers@icn.siemens.de>]

I think Kurt is right. It's the simplest solution.
Does this mean that an LDAPServer should never gives a subentry in the 
search result if this control is not set ?

Helmut

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:18 PM
> To: Ed Reed
> Cc: ietf-ldup@imc.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries
> 
> 
> I prefer option 1 as it is simple, adequately resolves this issue,
> and is consistent with other such extensions (e.g. manageDsaIT
> control).  As LDAP subentry TS is an elective extension to the
> LDAP protocol, I believe this to be best.  I would prefer
> to keep "future work" off this particular table so that we might
> reach closure on the LDAP subentry TS soon.
> 
> Kurt
> 
> At 09:24 PM 10/18/00 -0600, Ed Reed wrote:
> >Okay, Kurt - I've reviewed what X.511 specifies for the 
> service control
> >used to control subentry visibility.  What is your opinion 
> on what we should
> >do in LDAP?
> >
> >1) create a control which has no parameters, but has the 
> effect that when
> >it is present, it is interpreted identically to an X.511 
> service control with the
> >subentries bit set TRUE; or
> >
> >2) create a control which has a parameter identical to the 
> service control
> >specified by X.511.  This would have the effect of providing 
> a lot of the
> >additional controls needed to add distributed operations to 
> LDAP (including
> >preferChaining, chainingProhibited, etc.), but would also 
> provide things
> >like timeLimit, sizeLimit, scopeOfReferral, and 
> attributeSizeLimit, etc.
> >In X.511, the serviceControls are among the CommonArguments included
> >with each request.
> >
> >I suppose we could consider the list of controls in LDAP 
> providing the
> >equivalent to the set of CommonArguments.  
> >
> >What's your take?  1 would be easier to document.  2 would lay
> >important groundwork that should be considered in the 
> context of future
> >work to add distributed operations to LDAP.
> 
>