RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-02.txt

["Michael Armijo (Exchange)" <micharm@Exchange.Microsoft.com>]

I do not understand the reasoning for not using a control to extend the
delete operation for handling a tree delete.  LDAPEXT has traditionally used
controls to extend or enhance existing operations (Search, VLV).  A control
here seems obvious and beneficial to the general LDAPv3 community.

Bruce said:
"It seems to me that the handling of a
subtree delete that may span across multiple DSAs (aka LDAP servers) must
be substantially different than the handling of a delete for a single
object which normally can be implemented by a single DSA."

Agreed.  The tree delete draft takes this into account and allows the server
to deny the operation if it is not authoritative for any object(s) in the
scope of the delete.

I do not believe we should tie this functionality to other subtree
operations.  This would limit the adoption of the base functionality of
allowing a client to submit a delete request of a subtree.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 8:36 AM
To: Michael Armijo (Exchange)
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-02.txt


Michael,

There was an exchange seeral months back about this.  I still think that
these type of operations are better implemented as extended operations than
as controls to existing operations.  It seems to me that the handling of a
subtree delete that may span across multiple DSAs (aka LDAP servers) must
be substantially different than the handling of a delete for a single
object which normally can be implemented by a single DSA.  My thinking is
that if a control might substantially change how an operation is
implemented by a DSA, it should be implemented as a control.  So, I believe
that the extended operations that I proposed in:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-greenblatt-ldapext-sos-00.txt
are beneficial for server and client implementations of LDAP and should be
progressed on the standards track.  

What do people think?  Should this be a control or an extended operation?
Are the other two operations that I proposed useful as well (subtree copy
and subtree modify).

Bruce

At 10:46 AM 11/17/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Please review the attached draft on a Tree Delete control for LDAPv3.  
>
>I believe this control is beneficial for server and client implementations
>of LDAP and should be progressed on the standards-track.  Please send
>comments on this draft to the LDAPEXT discussion list.
>
>WG Chairs:  It was previously decided that this list is the best place to
>discuss this draft.  If consensus can be reached on this draft, I would
like
>to see it progressed through this WG.
>
>thanks,
>Michael