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

Re: A New Question about Referrals.

On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 15:58, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 03:26 PM 2001-09-05, Mark Diggory wrote:
> >Hello OpenLDAP,
> > 
> >When OpenLDAP (2.0.11) returns a continuation reference for a referral. Should that reference be transformed acording to the dn that was originally searched for?
> > 
> >ie
> > 
> >I'm trying to get the attributes of the dn <ldap://server1/ou=aaa,ou=bbb,o=ccc>ldap://server1/ou=aaa,ou=bbb,o=ccc where <ldap://server1/ou=bbb,o=ccc>ldap://server1/ou=bbb,o=ccc is a referral entry to <ldap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy>ldap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy 
> > 
> >Now <ldap://server2/ou=aaa,ou=xxx,o=yyy>ldap://server2/ou=aaa,ou=xxx,o=yyy is the actual entry that has the attributes I want and it is on server 2. 
> > 
> >Should server one transform the continuation reference gotten from the referral <ldap://server1/ou=bbb,o=ccc>l<ldap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy>dap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy<ldap://server1/ou=bbb,o=ccc>  so that the client following the cont. ref. tries to go to <ldap://server2/ou=aaa,ou=xxx,o=yyy>ldap://server2/ou=aaa,ou=xxx,o=yyy and not to <ldap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy>ldap://server2/ou=xxx,o=yyy to get the attributes.
> > 
> >The behavior of Sun's JNDI and LDAP service provider suggests that this is the job of the server to do this.
> >Yet, I'm looking for something in the LDAP v3 spec that suggests this. Does anyone have any references?
> RFC 2251 details the syntax and semantics of a referral result
> and a search reference.  It, however, does not detail how subordinate
> and other knowledge is actually held in the directory.  This was
> left to future specifications.
> OpenLDAP 2.0 implements an earlier version of the named ref I-D,
> a work in progress:
>         Named Subordinate References in LDAP Directories
>         <draft-zeilenga-ldap-namedref-xx.txt>
> 2.0 code needs to be updated here and there based upon latest
> revisions.
> IIRC, most namedref revisions requires the server to rewrite
> the DN as clearly the client should not.
> Of course, if you are actually using LDAPv2++ referrals, things
> gets quite messy.  Your mileage may vary here.
I'm using LDAP v3 Referrals specifically.


Where can I find this draft so I can understand the behavor thats
expected from OpenLDAP 2.0.x when it comes to named subordinate