> Subject: [Fedora-directory-devel] Please review: Bug 469261 - Support server-to-server SASL - part 4 - pta, winsync

[Howard Chu]

>  Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:27 -0700
>  From: Rich Megginson<rmeggins(a)redhat.com> 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469261
>  Resolves: bug 469261
>  Bug Description: Support server-to-server SASL - part 4 - pta, winsync
>  Reviewed by: ???
>  Files: see diff
>  Branch: HEAD
>  Fix Description: Allow pass through auth (PTA) to use starttls.  PTA
>  uses the old style argv config params, so I just added an optional
>  starttls (0, 1) to the end of the list, since there is currently no way
>  to encode the startTLS extop in the LDAP URL. 
I recently added support to OpenLDAP's libldap for specifying StartTLS as an 
LDAP URL extension. It seems this was discussed on the IETF LDAPext group some 
time ago and then it died. Perhaps if you add a request to the discussion we 
can get this resurrected and standardized. IMO there's an obvious need for this.

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

[Rich Megginson]

Howard Chu wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:27 -0700
> > From: Rich Megginson<rmeggins(a)redhat.com>
>
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469261
> > Resolves: bug 469261
> > Bug Description: Support server-to-server SASL - part 4 - pta, winsync
> > Reviewed by: ???
> > Files: see diff
> > Branch: HEAD
> > Fix Description: Allow pass through auth (PTA) to use starttls.  PTA
> > uses the old style argv config params, so I just added an optional
> > starttls (0, 1) to the end of the list, since there is currently no way
> > to encode the startTLS extop in the LDAP URL.
>
>  I recently added support to OpenLDAP's libldap for specifying StartTLS 
>  as an LDAP URL extension. It seems this was discussed on the IETF 
>  LDAPext group some time ago and then it died. 
Yep, I saw that.
>  Perhaps if you add a request to the discussion we can get this 
>  resurrected and standardized. 
Ok.
>  IMO there's an obvious need for this. 
Yes, agreed.