In my experience, the attribute type after the modify directive (add/replace/delete) is often ignored (except in the case of delete) since the attribute to modify is contained on subsequent lines.
Chris Ridd <chris.ridd@messagingdirect.com> Sent by: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
05/03/2001 07:08 AM
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
cc:
Subject: Updating LDIF?
Is anyone looking at updating RFC 2849, the LDIF spec? The perl-ldap
authors have observed a minor problem with change records that they would
appreciate some clarification on.
The problem is that the attribute described on the add/delete/replace lines
is permitted in the BNF to have options. It isn't clear how these options
are meant to relate to the options defined in the subsequent lines defining
attribute values to add.
does not appear to make sense because the added value is a home phone
number and not a work one, and the ;home attribute is not necessarily a
subtype of the ;work attribute. It is however permitted by RFC 2849.
Is it sensible to require the attribute on the add/delete/replace to be a
supertype of all the subsequent attributes?
Or is it sensible to simply ignore any options specified on the
add/delete/replace?