Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-dupent-03.txt

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:27:10 -0600

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 <[email-masked]> 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:[email-masked]]
Sent: 15 June 2000 00:43
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-dupent-03.txt

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 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.