[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Back-ldap and matchedDN (Was: (ITS#3942))
- To: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Back-ldap and matchedDN (Was: (ITS#3942))
- From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:25 +0200
- In-reply-to: <200508170612.j7H6CdmK017807@boole.openldap.org>
- References: <200508170612.j7H6CdmK017807@boole.openldap.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050524 CentOS/1.7.8-1.1.3.1.centos3
I note that now back-ldap, as a consequence of retaining anything comes
from ldap_parse_result(), in case it hits a referral it returns bot the
ref and the matchedDN. For example, in test039, there is a referral
entry "cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US". According to
draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol, the matchedDN can should be returned with
some specific errors, but could be returned also with other
errors/return codes, I guess including referral return codes. When
searching for, e.g. "cn=Deeper,cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US",
back-ldap returns a matchedDN="cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US" and
a ref="ldap:///cn=Deeper,cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US". In this
case, the matchedDN might make sense, because the ref indicates how to
continue the operation, while the matchedDN indicates what portion of
the DN was present locally. But when searching exactly for
"cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US" one gets both
matchedDN="cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US" and
ref="ldap:///cn=Somewhere,ou=Meta,o=Example,c=US". I suspect in this
latter case the matchedDN is definitely redundant. Should it be
trimmed? I couldn't find a clear answer in the specs.
p.
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497