Re: Comments from C Huitema ...
Alan Kong <Alan.Kong@mel.dit.csiro.au> Thu, 07 January 1993 23:20 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10544;
7 Jan 93 18:20 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10540;
7 Jan 93 18:20 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26195;
7 Jan 93 18:21 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP
id <g.06336-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:43:43 +0000
Received: from shark.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id <g.13932-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:43:27 +0000
Received: from bream.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU by shark.mel.dit.csiro.au with SMTP
id AA26930 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/DIT-1.3 for <osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk>);
Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:43:06 +1100
Received: by bream.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA10512;
Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:42:48 DST
Message-Id: <9301072242.AA10512@bream.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU>
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Cc: rosenthl@mcc.com, wg-nap@rare.nl, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk,
kong@mel.dit.csiro.au
Subject: Re: Comments from C Huitema ...
In-Reply-To: Your message of "07 Jan 93 11:53:09 BST."
<726403989.28488.0@faugeres.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 09:42:47 +1100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Alan Kong <Alan.Kong@mel.dit.csiro.au>
> From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr >... >By now, my only solution is to clearly use different and explicit >RDN for the relative root of the 2 subtrees, so that > giving a complete DN one or the other would be obtained > using a search, both could be given back > BUT with a returned DN showing clearly that > . one is the "authoritative" answer > . the other is the "non-authoritative" answer > >eg. > >something like > > <C=FR; O=INRIA; OU=DMI; CN="Paul-Andre PAYS"> >and > <C=FR; O=INRIA; <OU=DMI-Non-Authoritative>; CN="Paul-Andre PAYS"> > >or better (probabaly) usage of a multi-attribute RDN > >such as > <C=FR; O=INRIA; <OU=DMI; Status=Authoritative>; .... > <C=FR; O=INRIA; <OU=DMI; Status=Non-Authoritative>; ... > >regards, > >-- PAP Isn't it confusing sometimes when you perform a search and it returns two sets of information? Why not return the "authoritative" answer only when one does a search in the directory. When a user wants to modify his/her entry or look at some "updated" information then the "un-authoritative"answer be used. Regards - Alan