RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-17.txt [corrected]

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 08:46 PM 10/21/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>> "Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au> 10/5/03 11:50:20 PM >>>
>>> 4.6. Modify Operation 
>>
>>>    Parameters of the Modify Request are: 
>>>     
>>>    - object: The object to be modified. The value of this field 
>>>      contains the DN of the entry to be modified. The server will
>not 
>>                                                              
>^^^^^^^^
>>SHALL NOT ?
>
>These are all on many operations. I think SHALL NOT is too strong. I
>suspect there are implementations that allow the alias to be
>dereferenced (whether by control, local policy, or both).
>
>Do you think there is an interoperability issue here? If so, would
>SHOULD NOT suffice?

I think, no.  A server which deferences the alias not only
prevents modification of the the alias object, it might
(quite inappropriately) modify the aliased object.  A
SHALL NOT here is appropriate as without it one could
not administrate alias objects in an interoperable fashion.
This applies to all other update operations as well.

Kurt