[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: bitStringNormalize() vs. draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-04.txt

To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: bitStringNormalize() vs. draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-04.txt
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:17:57 +0100
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102130452.01a374a8@127.0.0.1>
References: <HBF.20030102unag@bombur.uio.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102130452.01a374a8@127.0.0.1>

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> So, I'd say the LDAPBIS draft is correct. 

OK, I've nuked bitStringNormalize().

-- 
Hallvard

References:
- bitStringNormalize() vs. draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-04.txt
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Re: bitStringNormalize() vs. draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-04.txt
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: is_entry_objectclass() still wrong?
Next by Date: ldap clients -> SASL -> GSSAPI (kerberos?) -> Active Directory
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread