Re: [ldapext] [Fwd: LDAP C API gripes]

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>]

On Feb 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

> Kurt Zeilenga writes:
> > For instance, consider validation of a value of the uniqueMember
> > attribute.  A server might say value x is bad.  The library might
> > be able to say that the 1st AVA of the 2nd RDN of the DN component
> > is invalid.
>
> No reason a server couldn't say that too, in the diagnosticMessage
> field.  OTOH a library can also provide detailed error info which
> a program can parse.

Another good reason to provide client side validation is to facilitate
conformance with the LDAP specification... RFC 4511, Section 4.1.5
does say:
   Clients MUST only send attribute values in a request that are valid
   according to the syntax defined for the attributes.

Of course, it's just wishful thinking that clients will actually
adhere to this MUST, which is why there are server side validation
requirements as well.

-- Kurt

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext