Tony Green wrote:
Sorry - suffering from premature posting - I'm seeing a therapist
about it......
On 24/04/2006, at 7:53 AM, O Plameras wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Dude, you can use gobbledegook in a DN.
This is not true that you can use gobbledegook in a DN. That's the
reason for the SCHEMAS and RFCs, to keep DN etc in line with
standards. There
are two standards X.500 and IETF. You use anything else then you don't
obey the standards at the perils of having errors in your LDAP
implementations.
Can doesn't mean should. You CAN use anything in your DN, I've done it
and it works [1]. That doesn't mean that you SHOULD use it.
In the same way you can set up BIND to host any DNS domain you choose,
it doesn't mean that the rest of the denizens of the 'net will think
it's a good thing, however you might have a legitimate (in your eyes)
reason for doing it.
Oscar, I think you should be weary of the terminology you use. Saying
you CAN'T do something implies some sort of real limitation, maybe you
should say it's not a good idea or that it's not the way it was
designed to be used. There are times when you may want to set up an
LDAP DN which looks wrong, according to the RFC's.
I did not say "you CAN'T".
I said "You use anything else then you don't
obey the standards at the perils of having errors in your LDAP
implementations".
Hope this helps.
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
