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

RE: Fw: ldapadd is failing - error: Naming violation additional info: value of naming attribute 'ou'is not present in entry

To: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>
Subject: RE: Fw: ldapadd is failing - error: Naming violation additional info: value of naming attribute 'ou'is not present in entry
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:38:12 +0100
Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <03df01c3dcb2$1650cf70$1801a8c0@CELLO>
References: <HBF.20040117ncpq@bombur.uio.no> <03df01c3dcb2$1650cf70$1801a8c0@CELLO>

Howard Chu writes:
> Yes there was a bug, but the correctness of the current behavior is suspect.
> In X.511 "Add Entry Arguments" it states
> 
>    The entry argument contains the attribute information which, together with
> that from the RDN, constitutes the entry to be created.

The current behavior is correct according to rfc2251.
rfc2251 differs from X.500 in this matter.

> Sorry, this is probably not a discussion to be having on this list...

A discussion about changing the LDAP spec to match X.500 in this
respect has just started in the IETF LDAP Revision mailinglist.
See the 'Protocol: Add, ModDN, and RDN attrs' thread in
<http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200401/threads.html>.

-- 
Hallvard

References:
- Re: Fw: ldapadd is failing - error: Naming violation additional info: value of naming attribute 'ou'is not present in entry
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- RE: Fw: ldapadd is failing - error: Naming violation additional info: value of naming attribute 'ou'is not present in entry
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>

Prev by Date: LDAP synchronization mechanism
Next by Date: growth pains, ldbm or bdb?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread