On 26-Aug-2005, Rich Megginson wrote:
> Are the X.5xx documents available on-line?
Yes:
http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=products&lang=e&parent=T-REC-X
The first three you download are free; register here:
http://ecs.itu.ch/cgi-bin/ebookshop
After the free ones, the prices range
Jeff Clowser wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
Jeff Clowser wrote:
suppose that might be more clearly stated in the X.501 spec?).
Sounds like I am stepping into an LDAP/X.50x holy war :)
I'm sure the folks on the ldap umich list will be happy to provide
their interpretations :-)
Heh :)
I
Rich Megginson wrote:
Jeff Clowser wrote:
suppose that might be more clearly stated in the X.501 spec?).
Sounds like I am stepping into an LDAP/X.50x holy war :)
I'm sure the folks on the ldap umich list will be happy to provide
their interpretations :-)
Heh :)
I propose the creation of
Jeff Clowser wrote:
Steven Bonneville wrote:
Well, sort of. What X.501 says and the LDAP RFCs follow is that an entry
is characterized by exactly one *chain* of structural object classes
that has exactly one structural object class as the most subordinate
object class in the chain...
...N
Steven Bonneville wrote:
Well, sort of. What X.501 says and the LDAP RFCs follow is that an entry
is characterized by exactly one *chain* of structural object classes that
has exactly one structural object class as the most subordinate object
class in the chain...
...Now, we can't add accou
Are the X.5xx documents available on-line?
Steven Bonneville wrote:
Jeff Clowser wrote:
Basically, part of the thread devolved to the idea of creating a single
user entry that has objectclasses: inetorgperson, account,
posixaccount, shadowaccount, etc. If I understand the respo
Jeff Clowser wrote:
> Basically, part of the thread devolved to the idea of creating a single
> user entry that has objectclasses: inetorgperson, account,
> posixaccount, shadowaccount, etc. If I understand the response (see
> below), this violates ldap standards because you are mixing in
> stru
That's a very good question. The "one structural objectclass" rule
probably comes from X.500. Can you post this same question to the
ldap@umich.edu list? There are many people there who are knowledgeable
about the roots of LDAP and X.500 who would probably be able to answer
your question.
Sorry to dredge up a really old thread, but I've been trying to track
down something about it that's been bothering me.
Basically, part of the thread devolved to the idea of creating a single
user entry that has objectclasses: inetorgperson, account,
posixaccount, shadowaccount, etc. If I un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
Unfortunately, the objectclass "account" is a structural objectclass,
which means you can't "mix it in" with other structural objectclasses
such as inetOrgPerson. So I think either the standard needs to be
revised to make account auxiliary, or c
Rich Megginson wrote:
Unfortunately, the objectclass "account" is a structural objectclass,
which means you can't "mix it in" with other structural objectclasses
such as inetOrgPerson. So I think either the standard needs to be
revised to make account auxiliary, or create a new objectclass
(
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Megginson wrote:
Under Core Server Features:
1. Disable anonymous binds.
...
Some security conscious sites feel that an anonymous connection
shouldn't even get to the data which is where the access control
information is stored. So they want the abi
Richard Megginson wrote:
Under Core Server Features:
1. Disable anonymous binds.
...
Some security conscious sites feel that an anonymous connection
shouldn't even get to the data which is where the access control
information is stored. So they want the ability to cut them off early
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking at the wishlist
(http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Wishlist).
Some of these things can already be done, and should be just a matter
of configuration, based on it's Netscape DS heritage. Wanted to give
back by suggesting some ideas on how to accom
I was looking at the wishlist
(http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Wishlist).
Some of these things can already be done, and should be just a matter of
configuration, based on it's Netscape DS heritage. Wanted to give back
by suggesting some ideas on how to accomplish these wishes where no
15 matches
Mail list logo
