RE: Fix for VLV draft.

["Michael Armijo" <micharm@Exchange.Microsoft.com>]

Jim Sermersheim said - "Maybe it intends to say that this result code
MUST only be used when the operation is accompanied by a control that
specifies its use"

I believe that may be the best way to go.  I will review the current
version and update the list with an updated draft.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:jimse@novell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:45 AM
> To: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: Fix for VLV draft.
> 
> 
> From my read of draft-armijo-ldap-control-error-00.txt, the 
> proposal is to ammend RFC 2251 in a way that cannot be done. 
> I may be misreading it. 
> 
> Maybe it intends to say that this result code MUST only be 
> used when the operation is accompanied by a control that 
> specifies its use. If this is the case, I think it should be 
> re-worded, and progressed so that other I-Ds needing to 
> consume it can be progressed.
> 
> Otherwise, I don't mind introducing a new error code in the 
> VLV draft itself that is only used in the presence of the VLV 
> control. 
> 
> Jim
> 
> >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 1/29/01 10:49:32 AM >>>
> I think it's a bad idea to overload the semantics of the 'other'
> (or any other existing) result code.  'other' should only imply
> some implementation specific error.   IIRC, Michael previously
> suggested introduction a new result code indicating that an error
> occurred during control processing.  I believe we should pursue
> this approach.
> 
> Kurt
> 
> At 10:16 AM 1/29/01 -0700, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> >Back in September, as the Virtual List View draft was going 
> through standardization process, Michael Armijo noted the 
> following problem:
> > 
> >>In section 3.2 we have details about what the virtualListViewResult
> >>codes mean, but we still do not define what result code should be
> >>returned in the actual SearchResult in the case where there 
> is a value
> >>other then success(0) in the virtualListViewResult.
> >>
> >>We should return something other then success(0)in the 
> SearchResultDone
> >>if there is a result code other then success(0) in the
> >>virtualListViewResult and what that result code is should 
> be defined (or
> >>referenced) in the VLV draft.
> > 
> >I propose that we fix this by inserting the following 
> statement as paragraph 4 of Section 3.2
> >If the LDAP SearchResultDone message has a resultCode of other (80), 
> >the virtualListViewResponse MAY be included and MAY hold a non-zero 
> >value in the virtualListViewResult field.
> >If there are no objections, I'd like to add this and allow 
> the draft to progress.
> > 
> >Jim
> 
>