Standard test suite for LDAP client testing?
by Emiel van de Laar
Hello list,
I'm posting this to two mailing lists... Hope no one minds.
I'm working on an LDAP client API implementation. To test the
API I'm looking for a standard test set (data) which can be
loaded into various server implementations.
The closest thing I have found so far is the following project
which seems to be quite dormant.
http://www.opengroup.org/dif/blits/
The LDIFs I tried worked for 99%; a couple of errors were found
relating to schema. It is quite dated...
And then there are the test cases... which could probably be
updated as well.
Any one have any other recommendations? Perhaps someone is
involved with BLITS or something similar?
I could flesh out my own test data and test cases but I'd
rather build on something that already exists.
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
- Emiel van de Laar
15 years
IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal
by Kurt Zeilenga
I intend to send a BOF proposal for IETF#73 for the purpose of forming
a new working group to undertake LDAP standards work. Below is a
rough proposal for your consideration and comments. (I am surely
biased as what new engineering efforts the proposed WG ought take on,
please do feel free to offer other possible work items.)
-- Kurt
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) BOF
Chair(s): TBD
The purpose of this BOF is to discuss the formation of a working group
to undertake LDAP standards work. It is conceived that the proposed
WG would undertake both the revision of existing technical
specifications for LDAP extensions and the engineering of new LDAP
extensions.
There are numerous existing technical specifications for LDAP
extensions. Most of the Standard Track specifications were published
prior to the current LDAP "core" specification [RFC 4510] and are in
the need of revision. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to
move the extension off the Standards Track. While the work of
determining which RFC should be revised (or moved off to a different
track), and prioritization of the work, could be deferred to the WG,
it is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusions as to which
revision work is of the highest priority.
There are also numerous extensions to LDAP which seem worthy of
standardization. It is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusion
as to short list of new extension work items to be undertaken (at
least initially) by the proposed WG. That short list might include,
for instance, in LDAP Transactions and Extensions for X.500 Alignment.
By including both revision and new engineering work items in a single
working group it is hoped that the sufficient participation levels
will be maintained to make reasonable progress in both revision and
new engineering work.
15 years
Revising attribute type 'mail'?
by Michael Ströder
HI!
Given that RFC 5336 and RFC 5337 are out now the question arises whether
1. attribute type 'mail' defined in RFC 4524 should be revised to use
LDAP syntax DirectoryString instead of IA5String with a new OID but the
same NAME 'mail'
or
2. a new attribute type should be defined with a different NAME.
Personally I tend to 1.
Ciao, Michael.
15 years
