ietf-ldapbis

ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org

13 discussions

Several name forms for a structural object class?
by Michael Ströder 01 Jul '08

01 Jul '08

HI! Looking at section 4.1.7.2. "Name Forms" in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4512.txt it's not really clear to me whether more than one name form may be associated with the same structural object class. I think it's possible (and I've implemented it that way in web2ldap) but the server I'm currently testing with disallows it. Ciao, Michael.

4 5

Fwd: Call for interop proposals
by Kurt Zeilenga 01 Jul '08

01 Jul '08

Anyone interest in proposing some LDAP interop testing? -- Kurt Begin forwarded message: > From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault(a)commerce.net> > Date: January 9, 2008 5:13:17 PM PST > To: Apps Discuss <discuss(a)apps.ietf.org> > Cc: Lisa Dusseault's Chairs <lisa-dusseault-chairs(a)tools.ietf.org>, chris-newman-chairs(a)tools.ietf.org > Subject: Call for interop proposals > List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols > <discuss.apps.ietf.org> > > > At the Apps area open meeting in Vancouver, Chris & I mentioned the > possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the next > IETF meeting. This would replace a day of Apps area meetings during > the normal meeting hours and in the normal meeting location. > Ideally it would allow people to come to the IETF for more than just > "their" meeting (although we have always hoped they can attend other > WG meetings as well) and participants may get more benefit and > better justification for attending. > > If we're going to do this, we need proposals: what topic ( IDs, > RFCs, suites or functionality) will be tested. I don't think > interops will need a lot of management but volunteer coordinators > would be ideal. Proposals will need to be followed quickly by some > indications of who will participate. WG scheduling is already open > and we need to tell the Secretariat immediately if they need to > reserve a day for interops. > > Proposals should probably be posted on some relevant subject mailing > list to quickly generate discussion among potential participants -- > not everybody reads Apps Discuss. > > Thanks, > Lisa > >

8 12

Fwd: [ldapext] LDAP BoF at IETF#69?
by Kurt Zeilenga 10 May '07

10 May '07

For discussion on the ldapext(a)ietf.org list... -- Kurt Begin forwarded message: > From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga(a)Isode.com> > Date: May 5, 2007 5:25:23 AM PDT > To: Ldapext <ldapext(a)ietf.org> > Subject: [ldapext] LDAP BoF at IETF#69? > List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org> > > It seems to me that it might be appropriate to organize a BoF (bar > or actual) > at IETF#69 to discuss specification and standardization of various > LDAP > extensions, determine whether a WG is needed/desired to further this > engineering, and, if so, rough out a charter proposal. > > Some work candidates (in no particular order): > > Internet Naming Plan (update) > Distributed Operations (chaining) > Distributed Authentication > Use of DNS in Internet directories (DNS SRV) > Password Policy administrative model and notifications > Transactions > DAP/LDAP alignment > Regular Expression Matching Rule > > If there is sufficient interested shown on this list (and > elsewhere), I > would be willing to put together a BoF proposal for AD/IESG > consideration. > So, please let your views on whether such a BoF should be held known. > > You're also more than welcomed to name other work candidates, and > comment > on those that I enumerated. > > Also, those willing to serve as a BOF chair should drop me a note. > > Regards, Kurt > > _______________________________________________ > Ldapext mailing list > Ldapext(a)ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

ietf-ldapbis