Re: [ldapext] updating LDIF [RFC2849] (was: IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal)

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

On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:38 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:

> (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?

I was thinking it would be good to, at a minimum, to revise RFC 2849  
for clarity (no version bump).

It may be appropriate to consider updating it to support extensions.   
That is, in addition to a version indicator, add a required-extension  
indicator.  That way readers can determine whether they'll be able to  
read the file without having to read the whole file.  Just the  
addition of this would lead to the version number having to be bumped.

If we do bump the version, then it seems reasonable to consider  
whether there are desired features which are so useful that they  
should be integrated into core format instead of handled as  
extensions.  One that comes to mind here is Steven Legg's XML value  
feature.

-- Kurt

> 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

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