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

Re: Distinguished name format & RFC 1779

At 11:31 24/08/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 06:28 PM 8/24/99 +0200, Frédéric Poels wrote:
>>When adding (1) with openLDAP 2.0-alpha2, everything workd fine, I get
>>                -> ldapsearch -b "o=HOME" -s base "objectclass=*" succeeds
>>When adding (2), I get 'o="HOME"' with double quotes which is not
>>equivalent to (1)
>>                -> ldapsearch -b "o=HOME" -s base "objectclass=*" fails
>Yes, this is one of the features not yet implemented.

What will happen when this will be implemented? Will the "add" operation be
affected or the "search" operation?
(1) o="HOME" will be "converted" to 'o=HOME' so that ldapsearch works?
(2) o="HOME" will still be stored as 'o="HOME"' but ldapsearch will
consider it equivalent to 'o=HOME'

In my opinion (1) is much more natural (it's "shell" like: 'export o=HOME'
and 'export o="HOME"' set value 'HOME' and not '"HOME'" to the environment
variable 'o') but posts about "distinguished name++" seem to indicate that
(2) will be the answer. I'm wondering why distinguished names are not
stored in a "canonical" format that would allow easy comparison?

The reason I'm so interrested about that is that I'm using 3 directory
servers that should exchange information. I was thinking about OpenLDAP as
the 3rd one but that will only work if it's able to manage distinguished
names containing '+' signs the same way the 2 already populated servers do.
Many clients are already in production, they issue ldapsearch('foo=bar++')
and not ldapsearch('foo=bar\+\+').

Have a nice day!

Frederic Poels.