Subject: Re: Relationship between dupent and matched values

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:59:50 -0700

Though the two drafts aren't related in such a way that one depends on the other, there were iterations of the dupent draft that caused a functional overlap with the matched values draft. That overlap has since been removed, and it was thought handy to point out the way in which both controls could be used to produce a given result.

For now, I think I'll leave the note out.

Jim

>>> Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]> 10/31/00 5:06:59 PM >>>
At 03:20 PM 10/31/2000, Jim Sermersheim wrote:

I'm wrapping up the final edits for a new version of the duplicate entries draft and I was going to add a comment about the usefulness of pairing it with the matched values draft. I'm hesitating now, only because I'd like to see this draft get to RFC status soon and so I don't want to reference a draft that isn't scheduled to be immediately advanced.
 
Does anyone have strong feelings about this? We could put the note in the matched values draft.
 
Jim

IMHO, the two drafts have nothing to do with each other.  Duplicate entries deals with entries as a whole.  Matched values (vainly) attempts to solve an attribute-value level problem.  Definitely do NOT tie one to the other!

Bruce

==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See my new Book on Internet Directories: http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html

---

From: "David Chadwick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:21:04 -0000

Date sent:      	Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:20:31 -0700
From:           	"Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
To:             	<[email-masked]>
Copies to:      	<[email-masked]>
Subject:        	Relationship between dupent and matched values

> I'm wrapping up the final edits for a new version of the duplicate
> entries draft and I was going to add a comment about the usefulness of
> pairing it with the matched values draft. I'm hesitating now, only
> because I'd like to see this draft get to RFC status soon and so I
> don't want to reference a draft that isn't scheduled to be immediately
> advanced.
> 

The matched values has already been sent off for last call, and 
includes an appropriate note. I believe you should do likewise. Here 
is the matched values text

This control acts independently of other LDAP controls such as 
server 
side sorting [10] and duplicate entries [7]. However, there might be 
interactions between this control and other controls so that a 
different set of Search Result Entries are returned, or the entries 
are returned in a different order, depending upon the sequencing of 
this control and other controls in the LDAP request. For example, 
with server side sorting, if sorting is done first, and value return 
filtering second, the set of Search Results may appear to be in the 
wrong order since the value filtering may remove the attribute 
values 
upon which the ordering was done. (The sorting document specifies 
that entries without any sort key attribute values should be treated 
as coming after all other attribute values.) Similarly with duplicate 
entries, if duplication is performed before value filtering, the set 
of Search Result Entries may contain identical duplicate entries, 
each with an empty set of attribute values, because the value 
filtering removed the attribute values that were used to duplicate 
the results.

David

> Jim

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

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

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