Can you describe how it is backwards compatible? Sounds to me like the syntax is not compatible.
Alex On 9/20/07, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I considered this before and concluded with the most appropriate solution > IMO. Current solution is completely backward compatible. The syntax supports > both refinements and filters for the specificationFilter component of the > subtreeSpecification. > > I can try to explain more why I did not choose other alternative if you > wish. > > > On 9/20/07, Alex Karasulu < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ersin, > > > > I got an interesting idea while thinking about subtrees and > > specifications. As you know we complied > > up until recently strictly with the X.500 administrative model with > > respect to subtreeSpecifications. The > > changes we added to handle refinements which were filters broke away > > from X.500 in many ways. > > > > I was just thinking that it may be possible to use an > > extendedSubtreeSpecification attribute which > > extends a subtreeSpecification. However the only problem with this is > > the fact that the attributeType > > subtyping another cannot switch the SYNTAX of the AT. This is what I > > always thought but perhaps > > I am wrong (I hope) but if I am wrong I think we can leverage AT > > extension while remaining compliant. > > > > Basically we can allow our subentry objectClasses to include > > extendedSubtreeSpecifications instead > > of just the usual subtreeSpecification. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Alex > > > > > > > -- > Ersin Er > http://www.ersin-er.name
