Re: LCUP Issue: Search Filter and returned entries

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/03/02 10:56PM >>>
>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.

Yes, or the scope is base, and it no longer matches the filter. Or for
that matter, simply none of the entries match the filter.

>>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.     


And the next sentence says "Servers MAY notify LCUP clients of changes
to the search set that result from such changes". Meaning--servers MAY
break the protocol.