RE: schema revisions

[Jeff Parham <jeffparh@windows.microsoft.com>]

Re #1, your equivalent of

<filter>(&(objectClass=person)(|(sn=smith)(title=developer)))</filter>

would be

<filter>
  <and>
    <eql> <desc>objectClass</desc> <val>person</val> </eql>
    <or>
      <eql> <desc>sn</desc> <val>smith</val> </eql>
      <eql> <desc>title</desc> <val>developer</val> </eql>
    </or>
  </and>
</filter>

Is that correct?

Can someone crystallize the advantages of using an XML transformation of
the raw RFC 2251 filter structure over use of the RFC 2254 string
representation?  Someone mentioned the desire to transform the filter
using XSL, but offhand I can't think of an example where a client would
need to do this.

Do you envision DSML clients building these filters element-by-element?

Thanks,
-J

-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Tomlinson [mailto:chris.tomlinson@sun.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:10 PM
To: DSML version 2
Subject: schema revisions


The attached is a revision of the DSMLv2.xsd and Batch.xsd with the
following items:

1) completes the Filter definition

2) incorporates Jeff's changes for:
     Adds controls to the LDAPResult element,
     Removes the dn attribute from ExtendedResponse,
     requestID is an attribute and added to envelopes in Batch.xsd,
     oc-value minOccurs='0',
   I didn't see where the typo in LDAPErrorCode enumeration was?

3) bindRequest and bindResponse are added. Intent is that bindRequest
MAY be supported and if supported "simple" BindMechanism MUST be
supported and the others (cram-MD5, digest-MD5, and kerberos) MAY be
supported. Further, an implementation of bindRequest will perform ALL
necessary exchanges prior to returning the bindResponse. There is NO
need for sequencing at the DSML level.

ciao,
Christine

winmail.dat