Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"):

No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named "add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs.

OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too.

Likewise, this is unsafe.

Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others do.