[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: ACI syntax
At 11:15 AM 6/2/00 -0400, Mark Valence wrote:
>The LDAPaci syntax is ugly, sure, but the code works.
The LDAPaci syntax is in flux, for example, ACI families
(which we used) are now removed. So, we must update.
I suggest we do what's "right for us" now (as we prepare for
release). I don't mind if folks want to have an implementation
of LDAPaci which tracks the latest developments in this area,
but it should be separate from OpenLDAPaci (as this needs to
>My feeling is that the aci's would be constructed by software,
>so they don't have to be easy for people to read
>(although they are not that bad).
Regardless of who updates them, they we need to have a well
defined syntax with appropriate matching rules.
>Still, there is alot of redundancy (stemming from too much
>flexibility) in the current syntax.
That flexibility will be removed in the next rev. of the
ldapACI I-D. It's been agreed that vendor ACIs should be
in separate attribute types.
>I welcome anyone's comments on the ACI syntax. I'll be in that code
>again, so if changes are needed/requested, now's the time.
- ACI syntax
- From: Mark Valence <email@example.com>