[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] Comments: draft-chu-ldap-xordered-00.txt
- To: andrew.sciberras@eb2bcom.com
- Subject: Re: [ldapext] Comments: draft-chu-ldap-xordered-00.txt
- From: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:33:55 -0700
- Cc: "'Ldapext'" <ldapext@ietf.org>
- In-reply-to: <200605180201.k4I20qVm002393@highlandsun.propagation.net>
- References: <200605180201.k4I20qVm002393@highlandsun.propagation.net>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060512 SeaMonkey/1.5a
andrew.sciberras@eb2bcom.com wrote:
Hi Howard,
Thanks for your feedback.
See my responses below:
That's right.. A silly oversight by me. Ordered Siblings is fine, whilst the
distinguishedName attribute olcSuffix still break the DN syntax.
For the moment, I think we're going to have live with this. E.g., I can
define "the ordering-prefix is ignored when validating that a value
conforms to an attribute's syntax" but that doesn't address the
interoperability issue.
2) the client is schema-aware, but doesn't recognize the
x-ordering
schema extension - in this case, the client should probably treat the
attribute as unrecognized. It seems that the ldapbis-models
doc doesn't
really address what to do about unrecognized extensions.
I would imagine that the handling of private extensions to well defined
schema elements and attribute type definitions should be implemented in a
way that they can be ignored if unrecognised. This relies on the private
extension not changing the semantics of the protocol though.
Model's isn't explicit about how clients and severs should handle
unrecognised extensions, but it does state:
- extensions to schema elements must start with "X-"
- Anything starting with "X-" are reserved for private experiments
This leads me to think that any schema extensions are for private use only
and cannot be standardised, which is possibly why BCP doesn't allow for
extensions to be registered. It's obviously fine in this case, since the
draft is Informational and can be perceived as providing information about a
private extension used in an existing implementation.
OK
> I think the problem is
that clients that do not support the extension, should not be delivered
information that has been modified for the purpose of the extension.
It was suggested that the ordering-prefix should be omitted from search
responses unless explicitly requested (by a control) but there are
situations where I don't think it makes sense when omitted. E.g., if I
have multiple hdb databases in my server configuration, I want
ldapsearch to return:
dn: olcDatabase={1}hdb,cn=config
dn: olcDatabase={2}hdb,cn=config
dn: olcDatabase={3}hdb,cn=config
whether the client understands the X-ORDERED 'SIBLINGS' extension or
not, otherwise the search responses make no sense (cannot be disambiguated).
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc
OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext