headers
Bor, Alexis | 1 Feb 1995 17:37
Picon

Soft Copy of Dir Sync Spec On-Line


Draft 0.12 of the Directory Synchronization Specification has been posted   
on nemo.ncsl.nist.gov in the directory oiw/dssig/xapia

I plan to make this available for comments to the EMA Directory Committee   
next week in San Diego.

The files are:

final012.doc -  Word for Windows 6.0
final012.ww2 -  Word for Windows 2.0
final012.rtf -  RTF format

If you need a different format, just send me mail and I will do my best   
to get you a readable copy.

Alexis Bor
Chair
XAPIA Directory Synchronization Technical SubCommittee
bora <at> ct.si.cs.boeing.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ray Freiwirth | 1 Feb 1995 18:26

Please subscribe

Please subscribe ray.freiwirth <at> citicorp.com

Please unsubscribe 5241391 <at> mcimail.com

thanks, ray
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
kirpal_khalsa | 6 Feb 1995 18:41

Re: Problems with sequenceNumber

     Hi Neil,

     Has anyone replied yet? Here's my take.
     Replies thusly: KSK>>

     Regards,
         Kirpal Khalsa
         Lotus Development Corp.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Problems with sequenceNumber
Author:  Neil Cook <n.cook <at> nexor.co.uk> at internet-mail
Date:    1/31/95 2:01 AM

I sent a message to this list a few months ago listing a few problems 
with the 0.6 data format specification. Some of them have been fixed 
in the new 0.14 spec. However, sequenceNumber is still a 
PrintableString with the separator ";" (semicolon). This character is 
(still) not allowed in PrintableString, thus we suggest again that the 
separator be changed to a : (colon). Has nobody else tried decoding 
such a file to discover this problem?
KSK>> No reason not to change this that I can think of.

Also, if you try to load this into a 93 directory, there are access 
control issues to worry about. If there is no aci information, then
nobody will be able to read the data. Will the attribute information contain 
a relevant access point and related attributes, will the subtree
contain the relevant aci subentries?
KSK>> Security's always been a big hole since day one, primarily because we 
decided not to address it for round1 of the spec. It seems highly unreasonable
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane