[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-187?page=all ]
Emmanuel Lecharny updated DIRSERVER-187:
----------------------------------------
type: Improvement (was: Bug)
Description:
RFC 2849 states that a ldif file must start with the 'version: 1' string.
LdifParserImpl does accept files that don't respect this rule.
It was marked Trivial as this is really not an issue : Microsoft(TM) ldifde.exe
tool accept those kind of files (even worse : it does NOT accept files with a
'version: 1' string ...). I think that it should be an option, but at least, it
should verify that the version number is '1', if present ! (p.5, par.1)
BTW, RFC2849 is not very clear on this subject, and could be interpreted as "If
<version-spec> is absent, ..." instead of "If version number is absent..."
was:
RFC 2849 states that a ldif file must start with the 'version: 1' string.
LdifParserImpl does accept files that don't respect this rule.
It was marked Trivial as this is really not an issue : Microsoft(TM) ldifde.exe
tool accept those kind of files (even worse : it does NOT accept files with a
'version: 1' string ...). I think that it should be an option, but at least, it
should verify that the version number is '1', if present ! (p.5, par.1)
BTW, RFC2849 is not very clear on this subject, and could be interpreted as "If
<version-spec> is absent, ..." instead of "If version number is absent..."
Bug-> Improvment
> Ldif files must begin with "version: 1"
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRSERVER-187
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-187
> Project: Directory ApacheDS
> Type: Improvement
> Components: ldap
> Environment: not relevant
> Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny
> Assignee: Alex Karasulu
> Priority: Trivial
>
> RFC 2849 states that a ldif file must start with the 'version: 1' string.
> LdifParserImpl does accept files that don't respect this rule.
> It was marked Trivial as this is really not an issue : Microsoft(TM)
> ldifde.exe tool accept those kind of files (even worse : it does NOT accept
> files with a 'version: 1' string ...). I think that it should be an option,
> but at least, it should verify that the version number is '1', if present !
> (p.5, par.1)
> BTW, RFC2849 is not very clear on this subject, and could be interpreted as
> "If <version-spec> is absent, ..." instead of "If version number is absent..."
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
