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

Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)

To: "Michael Armijo (Exchange)" <micharm@Exchange.MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:04:03 -0500
Cc: "'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'" <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>, "'directory@opengroup.org'" <directory@opengroup.org>
In-reply-to: "Your message of Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:34:33 PDT." <4992824A0863D211964B0008C7B1ACB803F9AB02@FIFI.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
Resent-date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"sgg4VB.A.pFF.C7Iq3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

I agree that invalidDNSyntax should be added to the list of probable 
result codes in a bind response in the next update to RFC 2251.  

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>

References:
- FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
  - From: "Michael Armijo (Exchange)" <micharm@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
Next by Date: Re: correct modifiersName and modifyTimeStamp behavior?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread