Re: [ldapext] Dynamic group draft

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

I wrote:
>>> The x-chain URL extension looks more generally useful than for just
>>> groups.  I suggest you split it out to a separate draft.
> (...)
> Anyway, I was thinking the other way, that a server would likely
> normally not chain but this extension would make it do so.  And it's not
> that I see any need in particular (I've rarely had need for LDAP URLs
> myself), rather I imagine that once a server supports it and people make
> use of it, they'll find other uses than with dynamic groups.
> E.g. search for entries by giving a simple client an LDAP URL which
> describes what to retrieve, and translate x-chain to a "chain" control
> attached to the search request (draft-sermersheim-ldap-chaining-xx).

Sorry, I was confusing myself.  Of course an URL extension used in
clients is not the same as what we call "chaining" in a server.
E.g. a client which reads data specified by an LDAP URL could prefer
either chaining (if supported) or referrals from the server when there
is no URL extension.

Um.  Perhaps it'd be better to call the URL extension 'remote' or
something, in case someone else would make the same mistake.
I.e. "The server will not follow continuation references unless the URL
specifies with ?remote that there may be remote entries."

-- 
Regards,
Hallvard

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