However, one issue I have with this code is that highly dependent =
behaviors which, aside from not be standardized, aren't even specified =
in RFCs. For instance, there is no RFC describing dnsHostName or =
ldapServiceName or any specification detailing how GSS-SPNEGO is to be =
used in LDAP. Without a formal specification (e.g., RFC), I oppose =
release of this code. That is, it should stay HEAD only until such time =
that a formal specification (e.g., RFC) is available.
Kurt, I somewhat can understand your concerns.
But as a general answer to your comment above: There is already a lot of code
in OpenLDAP for which no RFC or at least an I-D was specified but which serves
a certain use-case. Strictly (following your statement above) speaking one
would have to hunk out all the stuff only specified in I-Ds. So I don't see
the strong need to be overly strict here.
Quality of certain code is another story. But I cannot comment on this.