Re: subentries comments

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

At 05:41 AM 2001-12-06, Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>If the goal is to faithfully transfer x500 semantics as is to LDAP then I
>think the draft needs to be clearer about that.

The goal is to the LDAP mechanisms to act in accordance with X.500
semantics, as should all LDAP mechanisms.  LDAP is, after all, a
protocol for accessing an X.500 directory.

>For example, it could be
>renamed  from "Subentries in LDAP" to "X500 Subentries in LDAP" or ...

I think it superfluous to insert X.500 here as LDAP is an access
protocol to an X.500 directory.

>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".

We don't transfer mechanism, we adapt them while maintaining the
consistent semantics.  That is, the LDAP access to subentries uses
different mechanisms than DAP, but both are semantically consistent.

My co-author and I will, however, consider making a clarification in
this area as obviously the present wording caused some confusion.

>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.

Mechanisms differ, semantics are consistent.  This statement is
consistent with that which applies to all of LDAP [RFC 2251, s3.3].

>If you keep this line then that leaves the door
>open for differences,

The extension door is always open.   It's the goal of this
document to detail how a core component of the X.500 data
model can be accessed using LDAP.  Our intent is not to
extend this component, just to provide access to it.  This
gives the I-D a narrow focus which allows it to be progressed
much faster than if we opened the LDAP-specific enhancement
door.

>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.

There are certainly mechanism differences, DAP and LDAP
are quite different protocols.  However, the semantics of
each (as they apply to this part of the data model) are
quite consistent.  I've noted a one difference in the
last paragraph of section 1.  It exists for consistency
with the LDAP "core" specification due to how it handles
subschema subentries.

Kurt