RE: ADSI and RFC 2251

[Ron Ramsay <Ron.Ramsay@OpenDirectory.com.au>]

It seems to be in the meaning of

'.. or the encoding structures or lengths of data fields are found to be
incorrect..'

My feeling is that the [9] tag will prevent a successful parse and so
notice of disconnection is appropriate. This is in contradistinction to
the case of a badly encoded attribute in an add request where a -ve add
response would be appropriate.

Ron.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kurt D. Zeilenga [SMTP:Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org]
> Sent:	Friday, July 16, 1999 12:03 PM
> To:	Mark Wahl
> Cc:	Ron Ramsay; 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'
> Subject:	Re: ADSI and RFC 2251
> 
> At 02:29 PM 7/15/99 -0500, Mark Wahl wrote:
> >
> >There is no CONTEXT PRIMITIVE 9 in the choice in the bind request
> defined
> >by any IETF document.  Some old code from this vendor used
> nonstandard
> >tags as there were no SASL framework defined for v2.  1777 defines 0,
> 1 and 2,
> >and 2251 defines constructed 3.  Since there is a SASL framework for
> v3, the
> >vendor MUST use an appropriate SASL mechanism.  Perhaps you are
> recieving a 
> >bind from a client that is thinking it is still in a v2 world? I
> recommend 
> >that your implementation should return a notice of disconnection and
> close the 
> >connection.
> 
> Is a notice of disconnect actually appropriate in this case?
> I would think that a BindResponse:protocolError would be more
> appropriate per 4.1.1.
> 
> Kurt
> 
>