RE: WG Last Call on URP I-D

We think both changes would help.  Thanks.


John  McMeeking
OS/400 Directory Services
(507)253-4596 (T/L) 553-4596



                                                                                                              
                    "Steven Legg"                                                                             
                    <steven.legg@adac       To:     John McMeeking/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS                        
                    el.com.au>              cc:     <[email protected]>                                       
                                            Subject:     RE: WG Last Call on URP I-D                          
                    09/10/2001 01:46                                                                          
                    AM                                                                                        
                    Please respond to                                                                         
                    steven.legg                                                                               
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                              




John,

John McMeeking wrote:
> See
> <JAM>
> responses
> </JAM>

> John McMeeking wrote:
> > 2.  Section 5.1.3, b and c.  You might note that Section
> 5.2 will show
> why
> > attribute value deletion records are not required in these cases.
>
> Case c) explicitly *does* require (attribute) value deletion records.
> An attribute deletion record instead of value deletion
> records for case b)
> was a free design choice (based on what is most likely to
> match the user's
> intention) so I don't see in what way Section 5.2 shows why
> value deletion
> records are not required for case b). Section 5.2 would work
> either way.
>
> <JAM>
> I think I let a typo slip through -- I meant b and d (not c).
> Back to the
> original comment: Should there be any statement added that 5.2
> (specifically when p-remove-attribute supercedes other
> primitives) shows
> why value deletion records are not required?
> </JAM>

Now I understand. A statement like the following ?

  "It is not necessary to generate p-remove-attribute-value primitives
   for each of the values actually removed because the p-remove-attribute
   primitive would supersede all such primitives, by the rules in
   Section 5.2."

I'll add it if you think it helps.

>
> > Under
> > (d), you might note that d) covers the special case for
> replace where a
> > replace with no attribute values is treated as a attribute deletion.
>
> I'll add an "if any" to the end of the last sentence in d).
> I'd rather not say that a replace with no values is treated like a
> deletion since a replace with listed values is most definitely *not*
> treated like a deletion with listed values. I think it is better to
> describe each case in isolation.
>
> <JAM>
> I think it would be clearer to add a sentence like: "The replace
> alternative with no attribute values generates only an
> attribute deletion
> record."
> </JAM>

Okay. I'll add this.


Regards,
Steven