Re: To slash or not to slash (Was: Last Call on namedref)

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 06:53 PM 5/7/01, Mark C Smith wrote:
> >2) Section 6 (Named Subordinate References): Here and in other places in
> >the document it is noted that the server MAY omit the DN part of the URL
> >in certain circumstances.  But consider the following two LDAP URLs:
> >
> >    a)  ldap://hostb/
> >    b)  ldap://hostb
> >
> >The first one (a) is an LDAP URL that includes a zero length DN, i.e.,
> >it points to the root DSE or the "root of all roots" on hostb.  The
> >second (b) is an LDAP URL that does not include a DN.
> 
> While I would argue a) and b) are equivalent in any particular
> context (2255, referrals, references, ref value), I do agree that
> RFC 2251/2255 is ambiguous.

Yes.  Something to look at as part of the LDAPBis effort (I see you
posted a message already to that list).


> To avoid this ambiguity, the solution is to require an explicit
> DN in the returned LDAP URL (and to view an absent or empty
> DN part in a ref attribute as implying the DN of the referral
> object).

It would be nice to resolve the ambiguity and not require a DN to always
be sent in the referral protocol field.  But your proposal makes sense
given the situation today.

-Mark