Re: [ldapext] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-sermersheim-ldap-subordinate-scope-00.txt

[Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>]

I am not 100% sure what the right thing to do is, but it seems like it 
should be OK to return LDAP URLs with new extensions to any client.  I 
would definitely recommend that URLs that contain the new <scope> be 
only returned to clients that ask for them.

-Mark

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> Maybe the correct thing to do is to add a mechanism which allows clients
> to solicit the new <scope> part, but allow the <extension> part to be
> returned unsolicited.
>
> Jim
>
>
> > > > "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com> 8/17/04 11:49:00 AM >>>
>
> So you two are both saying that I need to add a solicitation mechanism
> (like a control) so that clients can ask for URIs containing the new
> scope? I'd rather not... If a referral is to be returned, the only URIs
> available are LDAP URLs that contain the subord scope, the client did
> not solicit URIs containing that scope, then the server is stuck * it
> can't return a referral.
>
> Furthermore, today's server implementations likely don't check stored
> LDAP URLs (in 'ref' attributes), for critical extensions and exclude
> them when not solicited * thus it seems some precedent exists where
> unsolicited LDAP URLs may be sent to clients that cannot be handled.
>
> Let me know if you disagree, or if I'm misunderstanding the wording
> below.


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