[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-url-04.txt comments
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
5. URL Definition
If an extension is unsupported by the client, the client MUST NOT
process the URL if the extension is critical. If an unsupported
extension is non-critical, the client MUST ignore the extension.
If a critical extension cannot be processed successfully by the
client, the client MUST NOT process the URL. If a non-critical
extension cannot be processed successfully by the client, the client
SHOULD ignore the extension.
I'm not sure what the difference is between 'unsupported' and 'cannot be
processed successfully'? These paragraphs seem to say the same thing
except that for the final MUST vs. SHOULD.
I suspect the intent was to distinguish between extensions that a client
understands but can't process vs. extensions the client is not even
aware of. But now that you mention it, the distinction does not seem
important. I think we can delete the first paragraph.
3. Table of Contents
5.1. Escaping Using the Method.................................4
Good catch. That was caused by a bug in my TOC generation script.
6. Defaults for Fields of the LDAP URL
Note: other documents MAY
specify different defaulting rules; for example, section 4.1.11 of
[Protocol] specifies a different rule for determining the correct DN
to use when it is absent in an LDAP URL that is returned as a
OK; will fix.
IP The filter in this example uses the LDAP escaping mechanism of \
Remove "IP". Suggest to split the URL in front of one of the '?'s.
9. Normative References
[RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP)", RFC 3383, September 2002.
This should be draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-01.txt.
Thanks for your detailed review!