RE: LCUP: rename of baseObject (was something else)
"Jim Sermersheim" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Often, the LCUP client is not the same, thus not aware of the "updater" and its actions. >>> "Liben, Michael (GTS)" <[email protected]> 09/04/02 07:30AM >>> I would recommend a requery of the object using a persistent value such as a UUID immediately before attempting an update. This would return the 'current' dn of the object and minimize instances where it has been renamed or deleted. -----Original Message----- From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LCUP: rename of baseObject (was something else) At 10:36 PM 2002-09-03, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >At 10:20 PM 2002-09-03, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >>The scenario I was thinking of is one where the base existed when a >>persistent LCUP session starts, but later is renamed or deleted. > >LCUP should be clear on the expected behavior here... Client Considerations implies noSuchObject is returned in this case. This needs to be detailed in Section 4 (along with many other protocol details found in sections 6 and 7).