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

Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?

To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:21:06 +0200
Cc: Ludovic Poitou <ludovic.poitou@france.sun.com>, Sam.Johnson@FernUni-Hagen.de, openldap-general@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <37C5395E.E2356C53@France.sun.com>
References: <199908261231.OAA13380@kudzu.fernuni-hagen.de> <37C5395E.E2356C53@France.sun.com>
Resent-date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"xRFG-C.A.wWC.H2Ux3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Ludovic Poitou writes:

> This [binding with DN but no password] is described in the RFC2251
> page 22.  Zero length password means no authentication (anonymous
> mode).

I think the "(anonymous mode)" comment is misleading and should be
deleted from rfc2251.  It's nice to have e.g. WWW gateways bind with a
DN, even if unauthenticated, in order to identify themselves in the
LDAP/X.500 server logs.

-- 
Hallvard

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
  - From: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Schema for Java objects and AD (draft-ryan-java-schema-01.rev.txt)
Next by Date: Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread