Re: what's optional in LDAP V3...

[sanjay jain <sanjay.jain@software.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> At 03:00 PM 10/6/00 -0700, sanjay jain wrote:
>
> >"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> However, given that subtyping is optional in LDAPv3,
> >
> >Kurt
> >   Could you please point to the text in RFC 2251 (or
> >   any other LDAP RFC) which explicitly states that
> >   subtyping is optional in LDAPv3.  I just want to confirm.
>
> I believe it's implicit in the following statements:
>
> 3.2.2:
>    Servers which follow X.500(93) models SHOULD implement subschema
>    using the X.500 subschema mechanisms, and so these subschemas are not
>    ordinary entries.  LDAP clients SHOULD NOT assume that servers
>    implement any of the other aspects of X.500 subschema.
>
> The first sentence implies that servers may not follow X.500(93).
>
> 3.3:
>    LDAP can be mapped onto any
>    other directory system so long as the X.500 data and service model as
>    used in LDAP is not violated in the LDAP interface.
>
> The interface is not violated if subtyping is not supported.

    IMO, its very hard to interpret based on above info that subtyping is
    optional in LDAP V3.

    Looks like if an LDAP client sends a search request with
    filter (name=xyz) and gets back objects which satisfy exactly
    this filter then it is not easy for the client to know whether the
    server does not support subtypes or there are no objects (in same
    scope etc..) which satisfy (cn=xyz) or (sn=xyz) types of filters.