Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-armijo-ldap-treedelete-02.txt

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:48:47 -0800

At 01:09 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Paul Leach (Exchange) wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Greenblatt [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 9:53 AM
>
><snip>
>
>> It is really just a matter of style.
>

So, this is the only thing that I said that you agree with?

>Agreed. But since we have _significant_ operational experience with the
>proposed style, and since you agree is just a matter of style, why not the
>proposed style?
>

If that were the case, we'd have standardized on [insert your favorite lame
deployed directory service here]...  The question is, do you really think
that implementing a delete subtree is best implemented as a control?  It
seems so obvious to me that it isn't the best implementation.  If you were
to have to change the definition from a yet to be standardized control to a
yet to be standardized extended operation, what do you believe the impact
would be on your product?

Bruce

>Paul
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com

---

From: Mark Wahl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:12:10 -0600

The problem I have with an extended operation for this aspect of 
deletion is that it cannot be combined with other controls that are
being proposed for the delete operation.

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.

---

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 20:50:05 -0800

I don't understand why a control would be restricted to use for only one
operation.  It seems to me that a control, if defined appropriately, could
be used with any number of operations.

Bruce