[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
4.1.11 comment (RE: I-DACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt)
I talked to Ron again about this and agreed that the wording is incorrect. I put a note in to fix it. The problem (when parsing the language carefully) is that it makes no distinction between name resolution, and searching.
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 3/9/01 8:22:27 PM >>>
At 04:51 PM 3/1/01 -0700, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>4.1.11
>>
>> The referral is not returned for a singleLevel or wholeSubtree search
>> in which the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several
>> different servers would need to be contacted to complete the
>> operation. Instead, continuation references, described in section
>> 4.5.3, are returned.
>>
>>Doesn't this rather miss the point. A referral is only returned if the base
>>object couldn't be located (navigated to). The response to a search 'in
>>which the search scope spans multiple naming contexts' may be a referral or
>>not - it doesn't depend on scope or naming contexts.
>
>I think this is just extra information. We could choose to pull it out, and doing so wouldn't affect the protocol, but I don't see it as misleading or confusing. Do you think it causes problems?
I believe this statement helps clarify the use of referrals
vs. continuation references. I'd prefer it be left in. It
could prefixed it with "Note:" to indicate the nature of
the statement.