ietf-ldapbis

ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org

28 discussions

Standard test suite for LDAP client testing?
by Emiel van de Laar 20 Sep '08

20 Sep '08

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

2 1

IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal
by Kurt Zeilenga 18 Sep '08

18 Sep '08

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.

13 16

Revising attribute type 'mail'?
by Michael Ströder 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

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.

3 2

Change of name forms and DIT structure rules when renaming an entry
by Michael Ströder 21 Aug '08

21 Aug '08

HI! when displaying an input form for renaming an entry I'd like to let the user search for possible new superior DNs. If applicable I'd like to construct the search filter derived from applicable DIT structure rules. So the question is how to find the structural object classes which are allowed for superior entries. X.501 (1993) section 12.6.5 says: "Each object and alias entry is governed by a single DIT structure rule." Currently I determine the governing structure rule by looking up the best matching name form for 1. the structural object class and 2. the current old RDN. Then I can derive the possible superior structure rules and lookup the superior structural object classes via the accompanying name forms. But now I wonder what to do in case the user wants to change the RDN together with a new superior DN in one rename operation? From my understanding changing the RDN could lead to another governing structure rule. Is that right? Ciao, Michael. P.S.: I'd appreciate interop testing over Internet regarding this... -- Michael Ströder E-Mail: michael(a)stroeder.com http://www.stroeder.com

2 3

subscribe
by Radha Krishna 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

**************************************************************************** **************************** This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

1 0

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

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

ietf-ldapbis