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

Re: FW: draft-good-ldap-ldif-04.txt

To: Mez Morrell <Mark.Morrell@nexor.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FW: draft-good-ldap-ldif-04.txt
From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:50:09 -0500
Cc: 'ldapext Mailing List' <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message of Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:29:53 BST." <002601bed916$6cd970d0$4f353fc1@sabre.nexor.co.uk>
Resent-date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"Rm0xzC.A.OoE.8Tzn3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

> I would have to agree with Gordon that the discussion probably DOES
> belong in RFC 2251, but I'm still unsure about the semantics of what
> should happen in the case where a zero-length attribute value is
> added for an attribute type whose syntax disallows a zero-length value.

If a client attempts to add a value that is not appropriate for the syntax
of the attribute, the LDAP server will return an error, such as 
invalidAttributeSyntax.  

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.

References:
- FW: draft-good-ldap-ldif-04.txt
  - From: Mez Morrell <Mark.Morrell@nexor.co.uk>

Prev by Date: FW: draft-good-ldap-ldif-04.txt
Next by Date: Re: Named Referrals Questions.
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread