RE: Openldap vs. IBM Directory Server

["Smits.Dolf" <dolf.smits@siemens.com>]

Hi Michael,

yes, it is valid (although specifying time in microseconds seems a bit
overdone)
The problem is that (some) IBM applications rely on exactly this format, and
won't accept any other valid generalized time syntax.
As far as I know, IBM is the only vendor using this particularly format, but
as applications rely on it, it means some kind of vendor lock in.
(opposed to the wrongly define inetorgPerson ;-)

Cheers,

Dolf
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ströder [mailto:michael@stroeder.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 23:36
To: Smits.Dolf
Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Openldap vs. IBM Directory Server


Smits.Dolf wrote:
> 
> One thing I noticed is that is has its own idea's of interpreting LDAP
> standards.

 From my experiences with implementing and testing web2ldap I must say 
almost every LDAP server product has its own ideas of interpreting LDAPv3 
standard (e.g. inetOrgPerson being AUXILIARY ;-).

> I once ported an application (IBM accessmanager) to Siemens Directory, and
I
> had a lot of problems due to the generalizedTime syntax, which is
incorrect
> in IBM. (timestamps look like 20030819230745.Z, beware of the point!)

Checked this moment on a public IBM Directory Server 5.1:

createTimeStamp: 20030628025321.000000Z

Hmm, isn't that valid GeneralizedTime syntax with fraction of seconds?

Ciao, Michael.