Re: subentries comments

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 07:21 AM 2001-12-05, Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>Couple of comments on
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zeilenga-ldap-subentry-01.txt.
>
>1.  I think it's good to promote the chop scoping rules--we are seeing
>more and more requests for complicated scoping for admininstrative
>data.  The problem I want to point out is that in our implementation we
>are used to allowing arbitrary LDAP filters for this kind of selection
>of entries, so I'm concerned that the restriction of being able to
>select only on objectclass could be a problem for us taking up this
>definition of subentries.  Could we relax this restriction to make
>specificationFilter a general LDAP filter ?  Any other possibilites ?

The goal of this I-D is to introduce X.500 subentry semantics
to LDAP.  Hence, where extension to the semantics is desired, I
believe these extensions should be first specified as X.500
extensions and then subsequently introduced into LDAP.  I believe
there are a number of means to extend these semantics in X.500.

>2. In the subentries control I think, for usability, it would be very
>nice to have in addition the option to retrieve normal and subentries at
>the same time, as opposed to one or the other.

Again, aim is to model the X.500 semantics.