[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-managedit-00.txt
- To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: [ldapext] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-managedit-00.txt
- From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:53:32 +0100
- Cc: ldapext@ietf.org
- In-reply-to: <7.0.1.0.0.20060228132901.03d38568@OpenLDAP.org>
- References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060228132901.03d38568@OpenLDAP.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
Excerpt from section 3.6.:
In absence
of a document detailing that the NO-USER-MODIFICATION constraint on a
particular operational attribute may be relaxed, implementors SHOULD
assume relaxation of the constraint is not appropriate for that
attribute.
This means a LDAP client cannot automatically determine which attributes
should be displayed as editable except a small known subset. Is that
really necessary?
I can understand your intention why you won't allow modification of
'structuralObjectClass' etc. But how about the server simply ignoring
them when sent in a modify request?
Ciao, Michael.
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext