[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry

To: "ldapext" <ldapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
From: "David Boreham" <david_list@boreham.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:28:53 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925112308.02920c38@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020925142047.04146908@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020925150020.0417ee98@127.0.0.1>

> No, I'm asking to specify DN in place of byoffset or
> greaterThanOrEqual.

I can't argue that this is a useless or insane thing to want.
However, I don't see a compelling use case which would
warrant changing the protocol at this stage in the game.

Suggest that this belongs in a VLV2 protocol.


_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

References:
- [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
Next by Date: Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread