RE: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries

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

You are correct.  I mistakenly equated baseObject search with Read.  

Tom


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Steven Legg [mailto:steven.legg@adacel.com.au]
 > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:48 PM
 > To: 'Salter, Thomas A'
 > Cc: ietf-ldup@imc.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
 > Subject: RE: Fwd: controlling visability of subentries
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Hi Thomas,
 > 
 > How did you reach the conclusion that the subentries service control
 > does not apply to baseObject searches ? I've just read X.511 and it
 > says the control applies to search and list operations, but 
 > it doesn't
 > qualify the type of search at all.
 > 
 > It would be sensible to ignore the setting of the subentries service
 > control for baseObject searches but X.511 doesn't read that way.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Steven
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org
 > > [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Salter, Thomas A
 > > Sent: Friday, 20 October 2000 6:31
 > > To: Mark Smith; 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
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 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
 > >  > 
 > > 
 >