Subject: RE: Get rid of "suggested minimum upper bound"

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:15 -0500

Hi all,

Figured I should chime in here.   To re-iterate, we're talking about the
"length" value that can appear at the end of the syntax OID as in
n.n.n{44}.

The z/OS LDAP server parses the length value and ignores it.

The SecureWay LDAP server (AIX, NT, Solaris, OS/400, Linux) honors the
length value and treats it as a maximum length for attribute values.

Regards,
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

                      "Steven Legg"                                                                                                       
                      <steven.legg@adacel.        To:       <[email-masked]>                                                        
                      com.au>                     cc:       "'ietf-ldapbis'" <[email-masked]>                                  
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  RE: Get rid of "suggested minimum upper bound"                                
                      owner-ietf-ldapbis@O                                                                                                
                      penLDAP.org                                                                                                         

                      03/11/2002 11:37 PM                                                                                                 
                      Please respond to                                                                                                   
                      steven.legg                                                                                                         

Michael,

Michael Str der wrote:
> Basically I asked for feedback of implementors. If anyone
> relies on the
> "suggested minimum upper bound" (formerly known as "maximum
> length" ;-) and
> how implementations are interpreting the meaning of it.

The Adacel implementation parses the length specifier but ignores
its value.

Regards,
Steven