Re: OpenLDAP enhancements

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

Julio Sánchez Fernández wrote:
> ...
> On the other hand, not returning them simplifies the processing, since
> now attribute handling is uniformly done according to the schema, while
> formerly a few attribute types were special-cased.  Putting back the
> operational attribute types in the root DSE would need special casing
> again and a strong case should be made for it.  Especially now that a
> a method (asking for "+") has been implemented to request all operational
> attributes after a proposal made on the IETF LDAP extensions WG (X.500
> has such a method, but no provision for it had been made for LDAP).

I don't think the LDAPEXT group concluded that "+" would be added to the
RFCs.  I remember it was discussed a while ago, but then discussion died
out (and if I remember correctly there was no clear consensus about
whether adding support for "+" was a good idea or not).  No Internet
Draft was ever submitted, was it?  One argument against adding "+" to
the spec.:  it may be prohibitively expensive for a server to compute
all of the possible operational attributes that could be returned with
an entry.

-- 
Mark Smith
iPlanet Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
My words are my own, not my employer's.   Got LDAP?