Subject: Protocol: confusing continuation references instruction

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:30:35 -0700

In 4.5.3 of [Protocol], there is the statement:

>   In the absence of indexing information provided to a server from
>   servers holding subordinate naming contexts, SearchResultReference
>   responses are not affected by search filters and are always returned
>   when in scope.

Anyone have an idea what this means?

My best guess is that some implementations may hold a copy of some amount of data held in a subordinate naming context (via whatever mechanism they choose--not just "indexing"). And if those servers can use the search filter to determine that there are no entries in the subordinate naming context, it does not need to send a continuation reference for the subordinate DSA(s).

Jim

---

From: Mark Wahl <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:41:51 -0600

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> My best guess is that some implementations may hold a copy of some amount 
> of data held in a subordinate naming context (via whatever mechanism they 
> choose--not just "indexing"). And if those servers can use the search 
> filter to determine that there are no entries in the subordinate naming 
> context, it does not need to send a continuation reference for the 
> subordinate DSA(s).

Yes, at the time this was written CIP had been recently discussed as a way
of distributing indexes between directory servers to cut down on the number
of servers that would need to be contacted for broad-scope searches. 
"indexing" is just an example, I agree this can be broadened.

Mark Wahl
Sun Microsystems Inc.