Subject: Re: [ldapext] VLV: MUST Sort Control

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 20:22:18 -0700

I'm revising the draft to capture what I believe consensus currently is. What I have not done yet is to address this issue, and some of the error handling issues. The latter should be trivial, but the former will require a quite a number of edits and I need to gauge consensus before proceeding.

So...

I don't mind rewording the draft such that SSS is optional but recommended. The current incarnation of typedown will not work if SSS is not provided, but I think we can just make that statement. We would also add that some server implementations don't support VLV in the absence of SSS, and they will make use of the sortControlMissing virtualListViewResult value.

Is there a strong opposition in going this route?

In the meantime, I will publish what's been done so far.

Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 09/25/02 11:58AM >>>
I believe that VLV should be designed such that a client need
not request sorting of entries.

Just as one can page through unsorted results using Simple Page
control [RFC2696], one should be able to VLV through unsorted results.
All that is necessary is for the server to provide some repeatable
ordering of the entries involved. In many servers, the server maintains
all entries in this fashion. In other servers, the server may need
to maintain the order in some context specific way.  The contextID
feature allows for this. And, in servers which only care to support
VLV where a sort control has been provided, the server can return
an appropriate error (which has been defined in the I-D).

I suggest VLV only RECOMMEND implementation of RFC 2891 and
that VLV not require the sort control be provided.

With this change, the VLV operation would provide all the
functionality of the Simple Page control.  This would allow
the RFC 2696 (Informational) to be obsoleted in favor of
a Standard Track approach.   Otherwise, it will likely be
necessary to revise RFC 2696 for publication on the Standard
Track.

Kurt

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: "David Boreham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:12:02 -0800

> Is there a strong opposition in going this route?

It works for me.