[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Last call on 'Named Subordinate References in LDAPDirectories'
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
>
> At 06:53 PM 5/7/01, Mark C Smith wrote:
> >3) Section 7.2 (Target object considerations), 2nd paragraph: The way
> >this is worded is a little ambiguous. Do we mean to say that the server
> >SHOULD trim the scope, filter, and attribute list from the URL before
> >returning it?
>
> Yes. The wording was meant to deal with search specific
> URL extensions. However, I concur the wording is a little
> ambiguous and URL extensions are address by following
> sentences. Hence, I suggest replacing the paragraph with:
>
> In cases where the URI to be returned is a LDAP URL, the server
> SHOULD trim any present scope, filter, or attribute list from the
> URI before returning it. Critical extensions MUST NOT be trimmed
> or modified. Other parts MAY be modified or trimmed.
Looks good to me. One nit: I would say "an LDAP URL" instead of "a LDAP
URL".
--
Mark Smith
Directory Product Development / iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions
My words are my own, not my employer's. Got LDAP?