[email protected] wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 01:50:23PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: >> Adding a source IP to an URI feels wrong to it. >> >> I have not read RFC dealing with URI, however having a quick look [1] seems >> to >> indicate that using the at sign in this way is non-standard. > > I agree. @ in URIs is already defined as separating credentials (or just > username) from the host. I don't recall whether OpenLDAP supports that > usage but in any case we shouldn't re-define it.
Agreed. URI syntax is pretty thoroughly specified in multiple RFCs, nobody can just arbitrarily decide to change it. And the point of a URI is that it is valid for a destination no matter who/where the source is. This patch completely breaks the function and intent of URIs. Closing this ITS. > I believe ITS#8654 is about the same feature? That one implemented this > by copying a Microsoft option, LDAP_OPT_SOCKET_BIND_ADDRESSES. I would > think that's probably a better approach. Maybe you could pick up where > the author of that one left off? He disappeared after posting his patch > for review... > > thanks > Ryan > > > > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
