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

[ldapext] new version of LDIF: scope


Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: 
So really, there isn't a lot that needs to be changed, and it shouldn't
 disturb the existing products at all, it will just give them another
option for writing.


In that case I think you're talking of an update to LDIFv1, to align the
RFC with current practice.  An update most implementations would need to
do nothing to support.  Is that what you are volunteering to do?  If so,
a free-for-all with change wishes would be a bit pointless, unless
someone else gets inspired to do LDIFv2.


.../...

Of course, which changes to include will still be debatable. _Some_ implementatinos likely follow the RFC and reject 8-bit data. Others may

Yes, there probably are some implementations out there that would choke on 8 bit data. So I should have worded my sentence as "it will not disturb most existing products". This change is small but it means that LDIF files will not be compatible with the current RFC, so the version number should be changed.

simo wrote:
>
> I think another point is also how far you want to go.
> So far an LDIF file is basically just a dump, a copycat image of a
> directory, something you can use basically only as loading from zero.
> But it's usefulness decreases greatly if you want to use4 it on "dirty"
> directories, as LDIF currently has no understanding of existing objects,
> conditional modifications and so on.

To be honest, the one problem I personally run into with LDIF on a daily basis is that anything that's not in english gets encoded in base64. I can see value in the other problems everybody is bringing up, but I have no first hand experience with them, and I feel they require longish discussions to arrive to a consensus, and then, because of the level of complexity of some of those, it would probably require to test them on a few implementations before we freeze it in an RFC.

On the other hand, everybody seems to agree that UTF-8 support should be integrated properly, this require very little change to the current RFC, it will be easy to implement, and, I think, will make the lives of a lot of people quite a bit easier. It looks like the perfect low hanging fruit that should be dealt with as soon as possible. I am quite surprised it has not happened yet.

Why don't we split this in two, we deal with UTF-8 now, and start working on the other issue in a separate thread ?


--
Yves.
http://www.sollers.ca/blog

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