|
Yes, this is what I'm trying to understand. Where RFC2251 says "violate directory schema" does it really mean *any* schema violation, or is it talking only about those that would cause objectClassViolation?
Jim
>>> "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com> 9/5/03 5:09:52 PM >>>
Let me pose some silliness and wonder at how to deal with it.
An attribute called X is of syntax integer
A modify adds the value "1#qrs#5" to X, then deletes the value "1#xyz#5" from X
The server tries to evaluate the two values being updated on X. Neither of them are integers, thus it can't use its normal compare routines to check for equality. I suppose the server could (in the event of syntax violations) fail over to using an exact octet match.
While the server is gathering up these modifications (in order to later commit them), I guess it can't hold the attribute values in a syntax-based data structure, because it can't rely on the values adhering to the syntax.
I think there's something even more ugly, but I can't think of it now...
Jim
>>> Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com> 9/5/03 1:25:28 PM >>>
Jim, I had always interepreted this as indicating that even if "silly things" are done in some of the modificationItems, that the server shouldn't necessarily fail the modification because an "intermediate result" was not compliant to the schema definitions. Re-stated, an entry in the process of being modified (within an atomic operation) is allowed to be non-compliant to the schema, but by the end of applying all the modifications (at the end of the atomic operation) the entry MUST be schema compliant. That's how I always interpreted it. Regards,
Tim Hahn
Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
phone: 919.224.1565 tie-line: 8/687.1565
fax: 919.224.2540
|
| "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>
Sent by: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
09/05/2003 02:45 PM
|
To: <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
cc: "Duane Buss" <DBuss@novell.com>, "Vithalprasad Gaitonde" <GVithalprasad@novell.com>, "Joseph Cook" <JCook@novell.com>, "Jim Schnitter" <JSchnitter@novell.com>, "Mike Cronquist" <MCRONQUIST@novell.com>, "Richard Ellis" <RELLIS@novell.com>, "Steve McLain" <SMCLAIN@novell.com>, "Parameswaran S" <SPARAMESH@novell.com>, "Susan Perrin" <SPERRIN@novell.com>
Subject: Protocol: modification items may violate schema | All,
An issue has been raised regarding the language in 4.6:
"While indi! vidual modifications may violate the directory schema, the
resulting entry after the entire list of modifications is performed MUST
conform to the requirements of the directory schema."
While I believe most server implementors understand this to mean that
while any one modification item may cause an object class violation, the
entire set of modifications must be evaluated an no error returned if
the net effect would not violate schema.
For example, in one test it is expected that given the entry
(singleValAttr is a SINGLE-VALUE attribute):
dn: dc=example
objectclass: x
singleValAttr: val1
the following modify should not error:
dn: dc=example
changetype: modify
add: singleValAttr
singleValAttr: val2
-
delete: singleValAttr
singleValAttr: val1
While it's obvious that the net effect is to have a single value (val2)
in singleValAttr, because the order is backward, a server doesn't like
it.
!
Other examples might include:
- Deleting a distinguishe! d !
name v a
lue and re-adding the same value
- Adding an attribute value of invalid syntax and then removing it.
- Adding a value that would produce contraintViolation, then removing
it.
Regarding the statement above: I've always read this as a requirement
on the data being presented to the server--that at least the resulting
entry MUST conform. I haven't (until recently) thought about it as a
requirement that the server allow silly things to be present in a list
of modification items.
What do others feel? Is there a need for clarity here? Are these kinds
of tests valid indicators of standards-compliance?
Jim
I'm surprised this discussion is still going on. X.511 is pretty clear on this - the result must conform, but it is necessary to allow intermediate steps to violate the schema
On the other hand, Jim's example with the bogus values for Add/Delete of an Integer attribute should fail immediately due to Syntax violation. The point is that temporary ObjectClass violations are allowed, so long as the final object conforms to the requirements of its ObjectClass, but other violations return errors immediately.
Also, from one of Jim's other examples: removing an attribute or value that is part of the entry's RDN is explicitly not allowed.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support |