[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals

To: ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org
Subject: Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:20:44 +0100
Cc: LDAP Extensions list <ldapext@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <478BA103.9040106@novell.com>
References: <6929B465-1C9E-47FD-8D6C-1D65E23448EA@commerce.net> <BA85B16E-7EB6-4D64-8D28-13C76A60746D@Isode.com> <478BA103.9040106@novell.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071128 SeaMonkey/1.1.7

Jaimon Jose wrote:

We do have test suites defined by opengroup which most of the directory vendors follow. Would that be sufficient? or should we define new test suites as part of this exercise?


Would be interesting to test some things which have rather draft status
like draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax-02.txt (together with a user interface)
or non-OpenLDAP syncrepl implementations (RFC 4533) if they exist.

Do the test suites of opengroup also cover proxy authorization? E.g.
JNDI falls short following RFC 4370 and there hasn't any response to my
inquiry on the JNDI-INTEREST mailing list. Ah, well...

How about testing over Internet? Less social fun but also less traveling.

Ciao, Michael.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
  - From: "Tom Doman" <tdoman@novell.com>
- Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
  - From: Jaimon Jose <jjaimon@novell.com>

References:
- Fwd: Call for interop proposals
  - From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>
- Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
  - From: Jaimon Jose <jjaimon@novell.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
Next by Date: Re: [ldapext] Fwd: Call for interop proposals
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread