Tim Howes <> Tue, 01 June 1993 22:26 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18074; 1 Jun 93 18:26 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18070; 1 Jun 93 18:26 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28392; 1 Jun 93 18:26 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:28:32 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:28:25 +0100
Received: from by (5.67/2.2) with SMTP id AA10057; Tue, 1 Jun 93 17:28:17 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: LDAP
In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Jun 93 21:05:15 +0200." <*@MHS>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 17:28:16 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Howes <>

> From:
> To:

> I don't know the current status, but during the working meeting we had here 
> with Tim, it was (in my mind) agreed that
>    1. indeed READ and LIST can be left out
>    2. but, in order to enable next generation client (DUA)
> 	algorithm it was important that the name error returned
> 	by an LDAP operation carried back the information about
> 	the "matched" components of the proposed DN
> Tim, 
> 	do you remember?

Yes, I remember ;-)  My reply was only meant to address the issues Erik

> 	do you plan to include this very important (for us) improvment?

I just need to look at exactly what this implies for the LDAP protocol.
The change will be simple, but will effect the error structure in a
pretty basic way.

We should also explain this to the list, since I don't think it's really
been brought up here before in detail.

Last but certainly not least, I haven't discussed this with the other
LDAP authors yet, which is a crucial step, needless to say!

PAP, can you post a more detailed description of your algorithm to
the list, and explain in more detail why the change is needed?   -- Tim