[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Attribute Name Length Bounds
I could certainly raise it within an interoperability/certification
program like that which The Open Group has. But generally, the certification
tests follow the specs. So unless there's a requirement relating to this
issue in the specs, it is unlikely to be adopted as a certification
requirement.
I think the interoperability problem I encountered is caused by lack
of a requirement specifying a lower bound. Its basically a grey area
as the specs stand now.
My interpretation of the LDAPBIS charter is that this is the place where
grey areas are to be clarified in preparation for progressing LDAPv3
to Draft Standard. In reminding myself what Draft Standard means (RFC 2026,
Section 4.1.2), clarifying grey areas affecting interoperability would
seem to fit within the scope of the LDABBIS WG Charter.
The group may not agree with my position on this particular issue,
but this does appear to be the appropriate place to raise it.
Chris Apple - Principal Architect
DSI Consulting, Inc.
mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net
http://www.dsi-consulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:52 AM
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Attribute Name Length Bounds
As far as I know, neither [Models] nor [Protocol] limits the lenght of
attribute names. Any limitiation in a specific implementation is imposed
by that implementation, not by the spec, so I'm not sure we can do
anything about it here.
Obviously no server allows an unlimited length, as they are all
limiited if by nothing more than available memory. I'm not sure if this
fits into an implementation report. It seems more appropriate for a
certification/branding program. Other than that, it seems like a valid
defect to raise with those implementors who restrict to unreasonable
limits.
Jim
>>> "Chris Apple" <capple@dsi-consulting.net> 6/13/03 1:28:54 AM >>>
I have encountered a problem while attempting to extend the basic
schema
of several different LDAPv3 server implementations. Specifically, some
of
them place restrictions on the length of attribute names. In one case,
the attribute name length restriction is rather short, too short to
make it possible for it to distinguish between two different attribute
names with the same character string as a prefix. Take a look at the
DEN schema for examples of such attribute names.
So far, I cannot find a requirement in any LDAP-related RFC or I-D
that addresses the issue of attribute name length bounds.
This means that you cannot take the same schema specification and
apply
it verbatim to different LDAPv3 server implementations and to me
represents an inhibitor to interoperability of clients and servers
that have different attribute length restrictions/constraints/etc.
However, I am not sure where to suggest adding such a requirement
to clarify the nature of the problem to implementers so that this
interoperability impact can be minimized.
Chris Apple - Principal Architect
DSI Consulting, Inc.
mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net
http://www.dsi-consulting.com