Handling M$ specification violations

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

M$, as usual, is violating many LDAP RFCs. For instance, you can send a 
simple BindRequest where the user name is *not* a DN.

I guess we will have to bend the API to accept such crapity...

wdyt ?

<curse>M$</curse>

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com

Re: Handling M$ specification violations

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

On 2/23/10 10:06 PM, Matthew Swift wrote:
> I think so - I realize that our OpenDS SDK needs to cope with this as 
> well :-(
>
> It makes me wonder what else could be violated? Should we permit 
> non-DNs for all operations? 
IMO, no.

> E.g. modifying the entry "joe.bloggs@example.com"?  It seems a bit 
> inconsistent to be lax in only one part of the protocol but not 
> others. ;-)
There is a difference with the Bind operation DN : for M$, it makes 
sense to enforce their own rule, as they can't ask people to type a DN 
to login (even if they could have used SASL instead of a Simple 
BindRequest). But AFAIK, I don't think you need to 'fix' some other 
request to accept something else than a DN.
>
> My preference is to encourage conformance where possible. What other 
> known violations are there other than the bind DN?
You can rad this very interesting paper from Symas : 
http://www.symas.com/documents/Adam-Eval1-0.pdf

One of the major violation, beside the use of a non-DN in a SimpleBind 
operation is the fact that anonymous authent is not allowed on AD/ADAM 
by default, but this should not be a problem from the API pov, and 
another one is the retrieval of MV attributes that may need a special 
treatment when here are more than 1500 values (and I guess we have to 
deal with this problem...).
-- 

Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com

Re: Handling M$ specification violations

[Matthew Swift <Ma...@Sun.COM>]

I think so - I realize that our OpenDS SDK needs to cope with this as 
well :-(

It makes me wonder what else could be violated? Should we permit non-DNs 
for all operations? E.g. modifying the entry "joe.bloggs@example.com"?  
It seems a bit inconsistent to be lax in only one part of the protocol 
but not others. ;-)

My preference is to encourage conformance where possible. What other 
known violations are there other than the bind DN?

Matt


On 23/02/10 17:33, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> M$, as usual, is violating many LDAP RFCs. For instance, you can send 
> a simple BindRequest where the user name is *not* a DN.
>
> I guess we will have to bend the API to accept such crapity...
>
> wdyt ?
>
> <curse>M$</curse>
>

Re: Handling M$ specification violations

[Matthew Swift <Ma...@Sun.COM>]

I think so - I realize that our OpenDS SDK needs to cope with this as 
well :-(

It makes me wonder what else could be violated? Should we permit non-DNs 
for all operations? E.g. modifying the entry "joe.bloggs@example.com"?  
It seems a bit inconsistent to be lax in only one part of the protocol 
but not others. ;-)

My preference is to encourage conformance where possible. What other 
known violations are there other than the bind DN?

Matt


On 23/02/10 17:33, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> M$, as usual, is violating many LDAP RFCs. For instance, you can send 
> a simple BindRequest where the user name is *not* a DN.
>
> I guess we will have to bend the API to accept such crapity...
>
> wdyt ?
>
> <curse>M$</curse>
>