11:38 a.m.
Hi all,
Why don't we have any 45XX rfcs in doc/rfc/ ?
Thanks.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
8:19 p.m.
Gavin Henry wrote:
Hi all,
Why don't we have any 45XX rfcs in doc/rfc/ ?
Because they didn't exist when RE23 was written, and we don't claim to conform
to them in RE23.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
2:22 a.m.
Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="Howard Chu">
> Gavin Henry wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Why don't we have any 45XX rfcs in doc/rfc/ ?
> Because they didn't exist when RE23 was written, and we don't claim to
> conform
> to them in RE23.
Ah, ok. The obvious answer. Thanks.
Hmm, maybe I don't fully understand the consequences of the "Obsoleted
by" in rfc-index.txt and the goal of the LDAPbis WG. IMHO OpenLDAP
should aim to be compliant to RFC 45xx (result of LDAPbis WG).
As I understood Kurt's LDAPcon presentation there are only the following
differences in the specification:
1. Using LDAPprep
2. SASLprep for textual passwords
3. Simple bind + StartTLS mandantory to implement (instead of SASL
DIGEST-MD5)
This is from memory and therefore maybe incomplete. So what's the issue
for OpenLDAP 2.3 with being compliant to RFC 45xx?
Ciao, Michael.
2:42 a.m.
My personal opinion is that updating the RE23 documentation (Admin
Guide, manual pages, usage statements, etc.) to reference the revised
LDAP TS is likely not worth the effort. Merely including the new
RFCs shouldn't be much of issue, we traditionally have included RFCs
we don't necessarily purport to implement.
(Note: I regard RE23 and RE24 as having similar levels of conformance
to revised LDAP TS.)
-- Kurt
2:59 a.m.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
My personal opinion is that updating the RE23 documentation (Admin
Guide, manual pages, usage statements, etc.) to reference the
revised LDAP TS is likely not worth the effort. Merely including
the new RFCs shouldn't be much of issue, we traditionally have
included RFCs we don't necessarily purport to implement.
Also, per http://www.openldap.org/faq/index.cgi?file=162, we do
purport to implement the revised LDAP TS (RFC 4510). It's just that
2.3 documentation has not caught up.
-- Kurt
3:29 a.m.
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> My personal opinion is that updating the RE23 documentation (Admin
> Guide, manual pages, usage statements, etc.) to reference the revised
> LDAP TS is likely not worth the effort. Merely including the new RFCs
> shouldn't be much of issue, we traditionally have included RFCs we
> don't necessarily purport to implement.
Also, per http://www.openldap.org/faq/index.cgi?file=162, we do purport
to implement the revised LDAP TS (RFC 4510). It's just that 2.3
documentation has not caught up.
If it ever should? Do you want me to consider backporting to 2.3 when
2.4 is completed? That's a big effort.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
OpenLDAP Engineering Team.
E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org
Community developed LDAP software.
http://www.openldap.org/project/
3:31 a.m.
Gavin Henry wrote:
If it ever should? Do you want me to consider backporting to 2.3
when
2.4 is completed? That's a big effort.
No. 2.4 is the focus now, 2.3 is done. Any changes that require more than a
trivial amount of backporting effort for 2.3 should be disregarded.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
3:39 a.m.
Howard Chu wrote:
Gavin Henry wrote:
> If it ever should? Do you want me to consider backporting to 2.3 when
> 2.4 is completed? That's a big effort.
>
No. 2.4 is the focus now, 2.3 is done. Any changes that require more
than a trivial amount of backporting effort for 2.3 should be disregarded.
Understood.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
OpenLDAP Engineering Team.
E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org
Community developed LDAP software.
http://www.openldap.org/project/
5861
days inactive
5862
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Gavin Henry -
Gavin Henry -
Howard Chu -
Kurt Zeilenga -
Michael Ströder