RE: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

Your option 2 is the X.500 definition.  The subentries control applies to
one-level and whole tree searches and lists, but not to baseObject or read.
You can always get the entry with its name.

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Mark Smith [mailto:mcs@netscape.com]
 > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 2:39 PM
 > To: sanjay jain
 > Cc: Volpers Helmut; 'Kurt D. Zeilenga'; Ed Reed; ietf-ldup@imc.org;
 > ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
 > Subject: Re: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries
 > 
 > 
 > sanjay jain wrote:
 > > 
 > > "Volpers, Helmut" wrote:
 > > 
 > > > 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 ?
 > > 
 > > I guess, going with the new scheme would require change in the
 > > following text from RFC 2251:
 > > 
 > > " Clients MUST only retrieve attributes from a subschema entry by
 > >    requesting a base object search of the entry, where the 
 > search filter
 > >    is "(objectClass=subschema)". (This will allow LDAPv3 
 > servers which
 > >    gateway to X.500(93) to detect that subentry 
 > information is being
 > >    requested.) "
 > > 
 > > Any backward compatibility issues (existing clients
 > > using RFC 2251 scheme to read subschema subentries) ?
 > 
 > Perhaps.  A reasonable compromise might be to return LDAP 
 > subentries in
 > these two cases:
 > 
 > 1) When a returnSubEntries control (to be defined) is present in the
 > search request.
 > 
 > 2) When the scope of the search is baseObject.
 > 
 > Why return LDAP subentries in case 2)?  Because it is more compatible
 > with 2251.  And because I do not think it does any harm -- 
 > if a client
 > knows the name of a subentry, it might just as well be able 
 > to retrieve
 > it without using any controls.  Comments?
 > 
 > -- 
 > Mark Smith
 > Netscape
 >