|
David,
You're right. Unless there is opposition, I'll plan on
removing the text that prohibits subtypes and make another change that make the
inclusion of subtypes obvious.
Jim
>>> Dave Watts <DJW@datcon.co.uk> 7/12/00 5:08:26 AM >>> Jim, Sorry to come in on this discussion late. There was one thing I noticed in your draft RFC - I think that you **should** consider subtypes for duplicate entries. This is more consistent with the general LDAP/X.500 rule: - subtypes count for interrogation operations - subtypes are ignored for modification operations. Regards, David -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:JIMSE@novell.com] Sent: 15 June 2000 00:43 To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; Kurt@OpenLDAP.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-dupent-03.txt >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 6/14/00 12:14:53 PM >>> >How does this control behave in the face of subtypes of the >provided AttributeDescriptions? If an attribute is specified, only that attribute is considered for returning duplicate entries, subtypes of that attribute are not considered. I'll add text to make this clear. |