[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-url-05.txt
Andrew Sciberras wrote:
G'day,
Just some comments:
Section 4. Introduction.
Include "MUST NOT" and "SHOULD NOT" in the final paragraph.
Good catch. I will add those.
Section 5. URL Definition
SLASH = %x5C; forward slash ("/")
%x5C is the backslash, use %x2F instead.
Oops. Thanks; I will fix it.
The "ldap" prefix indicates an entry or entries residing in the LDAP
server running on the given hostname at the given portnumber.
Does this imply that it would be wrong to chain the request, if the server
is able to do so?
No, I do not think so. The phrase "residing in" is probably too
restrictive. Perhaps replace with "accessible from" so it reads:
The "ldap" prefix indicates an entry or entries accessible from
the LDAP server running on the given hostname at the given portnumber.
?
An extension prefixed with a '!'character (ASCII 33)
is critical.
Wouldn't it be better to maintain consistency and use hex (0x21) instead of
decimal (33)?
OK; good suggestion.
If an LDAP URL extension is recognised by an implementation, the
implementation MUST make use of it.
What if you recognise it, but don't implement it?
If it is not critical then I see no reason why the operation should not
proceed.
Kurt can probably explain this better than I can... but the goal is to
be consistent the philopsophy used for LDAP controls in the Protocol
document. I think "recognized" implies "ability to use" an extension;
that is, if an implementation recognizes an extension it is able to use it.
-Mark