|
>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 10/24/00
1:54:28 PM >>>
>At 11:27 AM 10/24/00 -0600, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >>I have a few issues with this document that I'd like to see resolved. >> >>1) References to RFC 1738. Can we update these to 2396 and make the appropriate section changes? > >I believe it's general practice to update all references to the >latest incarnation of the technical specification. > >>1) Allow the use of <userinfo>@<host>:<port> (RFC 2396) rather than hostport. This provides a more consistent alternative to using !bindname=jimse > >Note that !bindname=jimse is invalid, value should be a DN. Oh yeah, oops.
>It would be interesting to see there has been work to use >userinfo to specify SASL authentication (and TLS) information >in an URI-scheme independent manner. Yes, we should look into that.
>>2) Missing search constraints: The following elements of a search request are missing. derefAliases, size/timeLimit, typesOnly. We need some of these to be available, specifically for referrals and search continuations. > >Is there a need for the continued search to operate under different values >of these elements? That is, are there cases where reuse of the elements >in the request to be continued is not possible? Well, the search continuation case might not be as strong. I suppose
size/time limits could be specified back to the client due to those limits
being partially exhausted.
>>3) BNF grammar. It would be nice if the document specified what flavor of BNF is being used in section 3. > >On a general BNF note, I'd like to see all LDAP Technical Specifications >use the same ABNF. I suggest that we use the ABNF as described in RFC >2234 (which should be progressed to Draft Standard before we're ready >to progress anything to Draft Standard). I agree.
|