Re: URL extensions, rfc 2255 vs 4516, 4521

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

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.