----- "Michael Ströder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pierangelo Masarati wrote: > > ----- "Emmanuel Lecharny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-just-ldapv3-rescodes-02.txt > > > > Iinternet Drafts are not authoritative sources of information. > They > > should never cited except as work-in-progress. No one seems to be > > questioning that noSuchObject is a legitimate response code for > LDAP > > searches. The point is whether noSuchObject is appropriate for a > > search whose searchBase exists. > > I wonder why that's such a big issue at all. When implementing LDAP > client software one has to handle noSuchObject and an empty result > set > anyway. In most cases the handling is mainly the same.
Let me disagree: from an implementation point of view, it depends on what a client is supposed to do. If the client's task is over after the search response is returned, I might agree. But in any case, from a(n informed) user's perspective, the two responses are not the same. In case of "success", no entry matched the search criteria, while in case of "noSuchObject" one search criterium, the searchBase, was inappropriate. I concur that this whole discussion is a little nonsense, as I believe the expected behavior is so well explained in RFC 4511, which is the sole authoritative source of information for this topic, that there is no point in discussing it any further. Also, I believe many implementations 'round do not conform yet to RFC 451*, as they might still conform to RFC 225* (like OpenLDAP 2.3 itself). However, I don't see much difference with respect to this issue. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ----------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Fax: +39 0382 476497 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------
