Hi all,
Why don't we have any 45XX rfcs in doc/rfc/ ?
Thanks.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 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.
-
Gavin Henry -
Gavin Henry -
Howard Chu -
Kurt Zeilenga -
Michael Ströder