Subject: Re: [ldapext] new version of LDIF: version number

From: Andrew Findlay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:14:08 +0000

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:06:27AM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:

> > The RFC gives only one digit for the version number:

> > There is only one digit for the version number, should we change that to
> > two ? OR do we wait for version 7 or 8 before we think about that ?
> 
> Yes, I also think that the version number has to be bumped up for UTF-8
> in LDIF since it means that you cannot transfer LDIF with UTF-8 over
> pure-ASCII transportation channels anymore. I'd just increment it per
> revision.

It would be worth fixing the standard to allow more than one digit in
the version number if any other changes are contemplated. That would
remove an arbitrary limit on future versions (though I *hope* that
there will not ever be a need for LDIF v9+ :-)).

Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd                 |
| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
|     http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/                +44 1628 782565     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext