Subject: Re: Duplicate entries filter

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:48:08 -0600

Oh yeah, now I remember.  This is an addition that Kurt pointed out should be there. The thinking was that it'd be unexpected to return entries that don't match the search filter. This being the case, there's a bit of functionality crossover between the dupent and matchedval drafts (under the right conditions).

Jim

>>> "David Chadwick" <[email-masked]> 8/5/00 5:44:38 PM >>>
Jim

as we discussed at the Pittsburgh meeting, the text still says that 
duplicate entries will only be returned that pass the filter. Is this still 
the intention or is it a mistake. Text reproduced below:

"These duplicate entries are returned to the client only if they still 
match the asserted search filter."

David

***************************************************

David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email [email-masked] 
Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm 
Understanding X.500  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm 
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm 
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J

***************************************************

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:43:38 -0700

>Oh yeah, now I remember.  This is an addition that Kurt pointed out should be there. The thinking was that it'd be unexpected to return entries that don't match the search filter. This being the cas…

Of course, it quite normal (for a non-extended search) for returned
entries not to match don't match the filter... (because of access
controls or whatever).

Basically, it's a issue of semantics.  Is the filter applied
before or after duplication?  (note: servers often use the
the filter for selection of "candidates" within scope, but this
is an optimization which is irrelevant as long as outcome is
not changed).

That is,
        a) all entries within scope are duplicated per the control,
      then filtered.

        b) all entries within scope are filtered, then duplicated
        per the control.

I find a) more useful than b).  However, there could be room for
both.  Dare I suggest another BOOLEAN?

Kurt