Subject: LCUP Issue: Search Filter and returnd entries

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:31:34 -0600

The draft states in Section 5.2 that "For LCUP, the intention is full
synchronization, not partial.". What is the implication of the search
filter? I assume that only entries matching the search filter (and
scope) are returned. Is this true?

Jim

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:56:27 -0700

At 09:31 PM 2002-09-03, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>synchronization, not partial.".

This may be referring to the fact that in LCUP, each entry
sent is "full" (includes all attributes regardless of whether
they've been changed) instead of "partial" (only those attributes
(or only those values) which changed).

But in the sense you took it...  note that the number of entries sent
upon full synchronization may be zero!  For example, the scope is
one-level and the baseObject has no subordinates.

>What is the implication of the search filter?

I believe LCUP must support both partial (not necessarily
all entries within scope) and fractional (not necessarily
all attributes of each entry) synchronization.

>I assume that only entries matching the search filter (and

Section 6:
   Changes to data (e.g., that might affect the LCUP client's filter or  
   scope) or meta-data (e.g., that might affect the client's read
   access) may affect the presence of entries in the search set.