Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct?
Regards Mariusz
Artur Nike wrote:
Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
No.
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.png is correct?
No. Like most things on the zytrax web site, it's wrong and that site should be avoided.
"dc=example,dc=com" is a valid DN. It happens to be a sequence of two RDNs. It is not a single RDN.
Quoting Artur Nike opalsie@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just depends on how you construct your suffix.
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct?
All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info.
-mike
On May 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Mike Jackson mj@netauth.com wrote:
Quoting Artur Nike opalsie@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just depends on how you construct your suffix.
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct?
All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info
Then you must not read their LDAP bits very closely. They are quite often dead wrong in what they have online and the best thing for everyone would be for their site to go offline.
--Quanah
I thought so too ..., Thank you all for your answers
Regards, Mariusz
2014-05-22 18:01 GMT+02:00 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com:
On May 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Mike Jackson mj@netauth.com wrote:
Quoting Artur Nike opalsie@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is
relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just depends on how you construct your suffix.
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct?
All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info
Then you must not read their LDAP bits very closely. They are quite often dead wrong in what they have online and the best thing for everyone would be for their site to go offline.
--Quanah
Yes their extreme details are lacking, but at an introductory level, they explain things very well for newcomers that all the grizzled old timers could not be bothered explaining. I think they should avoid the extreme detail (which can change over time) and stick to general ldap principals. LDAP is a odd beast, if you have not already been doing it for a decade or so.
So they provide some value. But perhaps not to grizzled old timers (present company excluded of course).
Cheers Brett
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.comwrote:
On May 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Mike Jackson mj@netauth.com wrote:
Quoting Artur Nike opalsie@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is
relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just depends on how you construct your suffix.
and whether the drawing http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct?
All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info
Then you must not read their LDAP bits very closely. They are quite often dead wrong in what they have online and the best thing for everyone would be for their site to go offline.
--Quanah
Brett @Google wrote:
Yes their extreme details are lacking, but at an introductory level, they explain things very well for newcomers that all the grizzled old timers could not be bothered explaining. I think they should avoid the extreme detail (which can change over time) and stick to general ldap principals. LDAP is a odd beast, if you have not already been doing it for a decade or so.
So they provide some value. But perhaps not to grizzled old timers (present company excluded of course).
It would be fine if their "value-added" content was correct. But in fact, the only content that is correct is the material they plagiarized from the OpenLDAP Admin Guide. Whenever they wander off into their own explanations of how things work they're always far off the mark.
Cheers Brett
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com mailto:quanah@zimbra.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Mike Jackson <mj@netauth.com <mailto:mj@netauth.com>> wrote: > > > Quoting Artur Nike <opalsie@gmail.com <mailto:opalsie@gmail.com>>: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ? > > A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just depends on how you construct your suffix. > > >> and whether the drawing >> http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch2/dit-dn-rdn.pngis correct? > > All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info Then you must not read their LDAP bits very closely. They are quite often dead wrong in what they have online and the best thing for everyone would be for their site to go offline. --Quanah-- Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
- Mark Twain
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
Artur Nike -
Brett ＠Google -
Howard Chu -
Mike Jackson -
Quanah Gibson-Mount