RE: ADSI and RFC 2251

["Curtin, William" <curtinw@ftm.disa.mil>]

Is the "Notice of Disconnection" unsolicited notification mandatory for all
implementations. I always had the impression that it was an optional
feature. Perhaps that's because it takes the form of an extended operation
response. Also RFC 2251 4.4.1 starts with "This notification may be ...".
Although not a MAY it seems to give the impression that it is not a
mandatory feature.

If it's not mandatory for implementations then perhaps, for consistency,  a
LDAPResult.protocolError would be proper.

					bill

-----Original Message-----
From:	Mark Wahl [mailto:M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM]
Sent:	Thursday, July 15, 1999 3:29 PM
To:	Ron Ramsay
Cc:	'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'
Subject:	Re: ADSI and RFC 2251


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.

You can find more information on these nonstandard and noninteroperable LDAP

Bind choices in the Microsoft Developer Network Library.  It will tell you
what they were intended for but not what the field contents are.

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.