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

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

To: Mark Smith <mcs@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 16:53:35 +0200
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, Ludovic Poitou <ludovic.poitou@france.sun.com>, Sam.Johnson@FernUni-Hagen.de, openldap-general@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <37C553AD.17DD1045@netscape.com>
References: <199908261231.OAA13380@kudzu.fernuni-hagen.de> <37C5395E.E2356C53@France.sun.com> <HBF.990826c821@bombur.uio.no> <37C553AD.17DD1045@netscape.com>
Resent-date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"izoDiD.A.3pE.ipVx3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Mark Smith writes:
> The text in 2251 section 4.2.2 says:
> 
>    (...)

Duh.  Sorry.  I did check -- another problem I was working on.
And then I bugreported this instead of that other thing.
Hm.  Now what I was that bug I found...? :-)

-- 
Hallvard

References:
- Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
  - From: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
Next by Date: Re: Must a simple bind with DN and no pwd be treated as anonymous?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread