Re: LCUP Issue: Search Filter and returnd entries
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 09:31 PM 2002-09-03, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >The draft states in Section 5.2 that "For LCUP, the intention is full >synchronization, not partial.". This may be referring to the fact that in LCUP, each entry sent is "full" (includes all attributes regardless of whether they've been changed) instead of "partial" (only those attributes (or only those values) which changed). But in the sense you took it... note that the number of entries sent upon full synchronization may be zero! For example, the scope is one-level and the baseObject has no subordinates. >What is the implication of the search filter? I believe LCUP must support both partial (not necessarily all entries within scope) and fractional (not necessarily all attributes of each entry) synchronization. >I assume that only entries matching the search filter (and >scope) are returned. Is this true? Section 6: Changes to data (e.g., that might affect the LCUP client's filter or scope) or meta-data (e.g., that might affect the client's read access) may affect the presence of entries in the search set.