Re: subentries comments

[Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems <robert.byrne@sun.com>]

Kurt,

If the goal is to faithfully transfer x500 semantics as is to LDAP then I
think the draft needs to be clearer about that.  For example, it could be
renamed  from "Subentries in LDAP" to "X500 Subentries in LDAP" or
"Representation of X500 Subentries in LDAP".  And again,  the text in the
abstract that says "This document adapts X.500 subentries mechanisms for use
with LDAP." could say something like "This document transfers X.500
subentries mechanisms to LDAP , keeping the same fundamental semantics".

A line like "LDAP subentries SHALL behave in accordance with X.501 unless
noted otherwise in this specification." appears superfluous if you state the
"transfer the semantics" goal clearly--there should by definition be no
behavioural differences.  If you keep this line then that leaves the door
open for differences, so I think the reader would appreciate a section that
listed any differences or explicitly stated that the differences were not in
semantics but just schema, for example.

I wonder if the guy who was tracking LDAP/x500 correspondance would have
some input here on the possibility of an extension to the x500 subentry
definitions...do you have his email handy ?

Rob.

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> 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.