-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:jimse@novell.com]
Sent: Freitag, 4. April 2003 02:04
To: mcs@netscape.com
Cc: ldapext@ietf.org; ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Extensibility of SearchRequest.attributes
Yes, here are some examples of special attributes:
Attribute Meaning
"*" All User Attrs (P-S RFC)
"+" All Operational Attrs (S-T I-D)
"+"<classname> All Attributes of an object class (I-T I-D)
"*;lang-"<xx> All User Attrs with lang-xx (no spec yet on
remaining)
"@"<uri> All Attrs listed at uri
"*MCSN>"<csnval> All User Attrs who's mod CSN is greater than that
specified
"*Len<"<len> All User Attr val's less than len octets
"^" No virtual attributes
"^^" No collective attributes
"$" Only static (no dynamically calculated) attributes
":-(" Attributes with deleted/unpurged values
"+dirOp" All directoryOperation operational
"+distOp" All distributedOperation operational
"+dsaOp" All dsaOperation operational
"#"<syntaxOID> All attributes belonging to specified syntax
Obviously, there are many (inconsistent) ways to express these, and
there are no guidelines or instructions to those who want to
create new
special attributes but don't want to collide with special attributes
being defined by other people.
Jim
Mark C Smith <mcs@netscape.com> 4/3/03 12:07:48 PM >>>
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
I believe this data type needs to be re-defined in the LDAPBis work,
and
I believe there needs to be a more formal way of extending it with
"special" values.
Currently (in both RFC 2251, and LDAPBis work), this data type does
not
allow the string "*" (or the proposed "+" for that matter). Both
specifications restrict it to a list of attribute descriptions. An
attribute description must either be a numeric oid, or begin with a
alpha. Yet both have "special wording" like: "There are two special
values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and the
attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that all
user
attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client to request
all
user attributes in addition to any specified operational
attributes).".
Another proposal furthers this and allows "+" to indicate that all
operational attributes are to be returned, and other proposals for
other
special strings are in the works.
Can you provide some examples? I am generally in favor of allowing for
extensions in many areas, but I am not convinced we need to
allow it in
this specific area.
-Mark