Re: [ldapext] Referrals in draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp-01.txt

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

At 02:45 AM 12/19/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp-01.txt says:
>>   For example, the LDAP delete operation could be extended via a 
>>   subtree control to mean that an entire subtree is to be deleted.  A 
>>   subtree delete operation needs to return continuation references 
>>   based upon subordinate knowledge information contained in the server 
>>   so that the client can complete the operation.  Returning references 
>>   as they are found instead of with the final result allows the client 
>>   to progress the operation more efficiently because it does not have 
>>   to wait for the final result to get this continuation reference 
>>   information.  
>
>Subtree delete can't return references in the final result anyway,
>because from such a referral, only one operation should be performed on
>one of the returned URIs to progress the operation.  Subtree delete may
>need to return several continuation references.  Also, the referral
>result code means that the operation was not performed, not that it was
>partially performed.

The last sentence does confuse the example.  The issue is
not one of efficiency but functionality (adding support for
continuation references).  I'll ask that the last sentence of
this example be deleted during AUTH48.

>Also, 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com' should be 'ldapext@ietf.org'.

That text will be deleted automatically by the RFC Editor.
(Note that the document is at the RFC Editor.)

Kurt 


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