Subject: RE: ModifyDN -- subtrees or not?

From: Chris Harding <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:36:42 +0100

Hi -

This issue has been discussed in depth in the ietf-ldapbis thread archived 
at http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200108/threads.html#00025. I 
am now adding to this thread at the request of the Directory 
Interoperability Forum, to point  out the problems that arise due to lack 
of clarity in RFC 2251 regarding which elements of the protocol must be 
supported.

The idea that a server may arbitrarily respond to a request or not is, to 
put it mildly, not very helpful to the application developer. How can 
anyone write an application that can can run with any directory without 
regard to the supplier, if different suppliers are allowed to implement 
different subsets of functionality, which may or may not be adequate for 
the application in question?

If you then say that you don't know whether this idea is correct or not, 
you make the situation very confusing.

This is particularly so as the words "a server will attempt to perform" in 
RFC 2251 seem on the face of it specifically to rule out the result 
"unwillingToPerform".

The server certification program defined by the DIF - The Open Brand for 
LDAP 2000 - requires all features of the protocol not specifically 
indicated as optional to be implemented. This is based on the assumption 
that they are required by the RFC, as per the above wording. However the 
DIF is very concerned to interpret the IETF RFCs on which its work is based 
correctly. If its assumptions are not correct, then its conclusions must be 
reappraised.

It is within the scope of the ldapbis group to remove the confusion, and 
the directory community is looking to the ldapbis group to do so. The 
charter of ldapbis is to deliver revised LDAPv3 specifications suitable for 
consideration as a Draft Standard, and the wording of these revised 
specifications should leave absolutely no room for doubt as regards 
conformance requirements for LDAP servers and applications.

Meanwhile, bearing in mind the time needed for documents to reach Draft 
Standard status, it would be valuable to have a formal statement of 
interpretation from the IETF on this point in the near future. Is there a 
way in which this can be done?

Regards,

Chris
+++++

========================================================================
            Dr. Christopher J. Harding
   T H E    Executive Director for the Directory Interoperability Forum
  O P E N   Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
G R O U P  Mailto:[email-masked] Phone:  +44 118 950 8311 x2262
            WWW: http://www.opengroup.org Mobile: +44 774 063 1520
========================================================================
The Open Group Conference October 2001 - featuring
ACTIVE LOSS PREVENTION - Establishing Trust and Risk Management in eBusiness
Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22-26 October 2001
http://www.opengroup.org/amsterdam2001
========================================================================

---

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:36:58 -0400

Chris,

I agree with your sentiments.

The trick here is to be very precise without being overly prescriptive 
(i.e. allow room for different implementations to exist and provide 
"value-add" functions).

Regards,
Tim Hahn

Internet: [email-masked]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681

Chris Harding <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/14/2001 06:36 AM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: ModifyDN -- subtrees or not?

Hi -

The server certification program defined by the DIF - The Open Brand for 
LDAP 2000 - requires all features of the protocol not specifically 
indicated as optional to be implemented. This is based on the assumption 
that they are required by the RFC, as per the above wording. However the 
DIF is very concerned to interpret the IETF RFCs on which its work is 
based 
correctly. If its assumptions are not correct, then its conclusions must 
be 
reappraised.

charter of ldapbis is to deliver revised LDAPv3 specifications suitable 
for 

Regards,

Chris
+++++

ACTIVE LOSS PREVENTION - Establishing Trust and Risk Management in 
eBusiness