[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Continuation reference to root DN
Jim Sermersheim writes:
> After re-reading this thread, I can find no clarifications that need to
> be made in the protocol document. I do remember someone (Kurt?) at the
> last meeting commenting on one item that could be clarified--it escapes
> me at the moment though.
Someone in this thred (I or Kurt?) did mention to explicitly forbid
continuation references to the root DN.
4.5.3 (Continuation References in the Search Result):
"The <dn> part MUST be present"
(which Kurt mentioned could mean a present but empty DN)
-> "The <dn> part MUST NOT be empty"