Subject: Re: Revised DN ABNF

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:52:15 -0500

Kurt,

After consulting with some of my colleagues here, we agree with the 
revised ABNF that you had proposed on this mailing list with the condition 
that the words:

"Server implementations parsing a DN string generated by an LDAPv2 client 
MUST also accept (and ignore) the variants given in section 4 of this 
document."

still appear in the document.  Since only an excerpt was posted to the 
list, these words may be in the draft somewhere already.  We just wanted 
to make sure that they aren't dropped.

Thanks,
Tim Hahn

Internet: [email-masked]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:28:21 -0800

At 04:52 PM 1/4/01 -0500, Timothy Hahn wrote:
>Since only an excerpt was posted to the list,

I submitted a revised I-D <draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-00.txt> with
the revised ABNF a couple of weeks ago.  The revised I-D
does not to have the sentence you meantion nor the LDAPv2/RFC1777
section it refers to.

>We just wanted to make sure that they [Section 4] aren't dropped. 

I commented on my rational for their removal in the following posts:
  http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200012/msg00065.html
  http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200012/msg00066.html

I suggest you review the latest I-D, these posts, and then
comment.

Kurt