[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: No-op LDAP ;binary option
Christopher Oliva wrote:
> David, I agree with the summary of the problem you've provided below ..
> in terms of basic ldapv3 interoperability, ;binary has been the number 1
> problem I've encountered.
> I prefer a solution that defines "userCertificate;binary" and
> "userCertificate" to have the same meaning .. that is, a request for
> userCertificate will return the same binary encoded value as a request
> for userCertificate;binary (and the attribute description returned will
> be userCertificate;binary if userCertificate;binary was requested).
I think of this is the Tomato Solution:
You say you want a to-MAH-to? I'll give you this red juicy thing that
goes well on salads...and we'll both call it a to-MAH-to.
Oh, you say you'd prefer a to-MAY-to? Then I'll give you this red
juicy thing that goes well on salads...and we'll both call it a
Seriously, I agree with the above proposal.