[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Bug Fix: attribute names/ordering in search returns (ITS#787)
At 05:59 AM 9/29/00 +0000, email@example.com wrote:
>"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
>> Returning the attribute exactly as the client requested it can violate the
>> technical specification. If the client asked for attribute type by OID,
>> the server MUST return the attribute type by NAME if it has a NAME for
>> the attribute type. I agree that this doesn't make sense, but that's
>> what the specification (currently) requires.
>No, it doesn't make sense. What is the source of the requirement? I
>have the RFCs, but not the X.500 documents.
RFC 2251, 4.1.4. Note also the requirement to generate attribute
description options in ascending order. RFC2251, 4.1.5.
>> This client is hosed... from what I've gathered (from Microsoft's website),
>> this client only works with MS's ILS (Site Server).
>But I _have_ gotten it working with openldap, using a perl script and
>the shell backend to fixup its brokenness.
Why not fix these other issues in your backend?