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

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

To: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:21:51 -0700
Cc: "Michael Armijo (Exchange)" <micharm@Exchange.MICROSOFT.com>, "'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com'" <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>, "'directory@opengroup.org'" <directory@opengroup.org>
Organization: OpenLDAP <http://www.openldap.org/>
References: <10556.933793443@threadgill.austin.innosoft.com>
Resent-date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"W-LZTB.A.c2G.aLJq3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Mark Wahl wrote:
> 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.

Is it a "probable" list of result codes or a list of the list
of the all the allowed result codes for this operation.

Kurt

References:
- Re: FW: BLITS (3.3.1.4.3) Inconsistency w/ RFC 2251 (Section4.2.3.)
  - From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>

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