Re: LDAP Comments

[[e-mail]]

> > o  Was it intentional that there be no "List" operation?  I suppose a
> >    DUA could use a "Search" instead, but as a DUA implementor I'd
> >    rather be able to issue a List operation when all I want is a list
> >    of subordinates.
> 
> It was intentional to leave out both list and read.  These are trivially
> implemented using search and leaving them out simplifies the protocol.
> 

Sorry, but I probably missed something.
Could you elaborate a bit on this?
Do you mean the LDAP server will convert the simplest searches
to list/read, or do you mean that every DSA
   either have to do this
   or have to present more or less the same level of
     performance for the simplest search operations than for
     read/list.
If this is a requirement on DSAs, well, this may be true with
QUIPU like implementations (where the master relative root
of a given subtree is hold by  a "father" DSA), it is obviously
untrue with other implementations, and as such totally
unacceptable from a pure performance point of view.
   Even a "search-one-level", with the "don't use copy" flag set
   will result in most implementations in chaining to all
   subordinate DSA (or return of referals).
   By no way this compares to a read or list.


-- PAP