[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[ldapext] updating LDIF [RFC2849] (was: IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal)
- To: Ldapext list <ldapext@ietf.org>
- Subject: [ldapext] updating LDIF [RFC2849] (was: IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal)
- From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:38:42 +0200
- Delivered-to: ldapext@core3.amsl.com
- In-reply-to: <B4BCF325-9395-4165-8222-32A7B3A57BC1@isode.com>
- References: <6B4DC086-C4AF-49CA-B31F-2794FBBCD8B6@Isode.com> <64f4b53b0808300747p6acf6ef1r1a6d16bc80686919@mail.gmail.com> <B4BCF325-9395-4165-8222-32A7B3A57BC1@isode.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 SeaMonkey/1.1.12
(Follow-up only on ldapext.)
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> (My own top-few list
> would likely include updating LDIF [RFC2849].)
Somewhat I'm curious what you have in mind.
Only updating or extending?
Since today LDIF snippets are also used for templates, e.g. with
additional proprietary syntax for composing attribute values based on
other attributes, I'm currently thinking about how to do this right. I
have some rough ideas. Well, my favourite approach would not change the
LDIF syntax anyway.
Ciao, Michael.
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext