Re: LDAP Comments

[Tim Howes <[e-mail]>]

> From:    [e-mail]
> To:      [e-mail], [e-mail]

> let me just give you an (hypothetical?) example:
> 
> 	French master is a non QUIPU like DSA
> 		ie the master entries of all the Org in France are hold
> 		by the org. DSAs
> 	let suppose
> 		1. we have a few hundreds org DSAs in France
> 		2. a client just need to know wether a given
> 			DN is valid (eg C=FR; O=a-given-org; exist)
> 			and get the Org fax number
> 
> a search-one-level 
> 	base-object: C=FR;
> 	filter: Class: organization
> 		O=a-given-org;
> 	Don't use copy flag: SET

This operation should be done by a base-object search, not a one-level
search.  The search filter should be something like "objectClass=*".
Attributes returned should be facsimileTelephoneNumber.  If the don't
use copy flag is set, only a single DSA will need to be chained to.

> would result in chaining a few hundreds DSAs (or more reaslistic
> in returning a few hundred referals)
> 
> while a read
> 	C=FR; O=a-given-org;
> 
> will only rely in one chaining from the french master to the
> DSA manging "a-given-org" data

A read operation can be simulated in LDAP using a BASEOBJECT search
with a filter testing for the existence of the objectClass attribute.
It should only cause one chaining operation, just like a read.

> PS: let me remind everyone that the QUIPU choice which consist
> in having all the master entries under a node being held by the same DSA,
> is
>   1. a very QUIPUcentric view of the X.500 world
>   2. is, after many thoughts, brain-damaged, when you take into
> 	account security and authentication, and will (in my mind)
> 	certainly be followed by nearly no other implementations.
> 	I am ready to bet a bottle of "faugeres" that ISODE Cons. will
> 	have to do something about this in the near to medium future.
> 	My advice, don't base any design of thsi very proprietary
> 	functionality!

The QUIPU approach obviously has some good points.  But I agree that
it imposes unacceptable limitations in the long run.  Something will
have to be done about it eventually, and I believe you are correct
that the IC will have to do it.  So, I wouldn't bet you a bottle of
"faugeres", even if I knew what that was!                 -- Tim