Re: URL extensions, rfc 2255 vs 4516, 4521

Dieter Kluenter wrote:

RFC 2255 describes URL extensions like bindname and x-foo. RFC 4516 only shows a hypothetical example with e- extension. Part A1 of RFC 4516 says that bindname had been removed due to lack of known implementations.

More discussion:

http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200404/msg00070.html

sdb-ldap from Stig Venaas is such an implementation.

And also web2ldap supports bindname extension (and X-BINDPW but which is not recommended to be use in your bookmarks for anything serious)...

Now my question: is OpenLDAP-2.4 still honoring bindname and x-bindpw extensions?

Did OpenLDAP ever implement it? And for which purpose?

Ciao, Michael.