[389-devel] DN normalisation design document
andrey.ivanov at polytechnique.fr
Wed Mar 17 15:02:29 UTC 2010
i've read the design document
In order to support "Old DN format including DN in the double quotes"
another cn=config switch may be necessary. It seems there was recently a new
switch introduced to make the dn syntax validation a little more "relaxed" -
nsslapd-dn-validate-strict. Maybe this one could be used to allow for DNs
with double-quoted values?
Here is the commit comment for that parameter :
Author: Nathan Kinder <nkinder at redhat.com>
Date: Wed May 13 11:12:11 2009 -0700
Add strict DN syntax enforcement option.
The DN syntax has become more restrictive over time, and the
current rules are quite strict. Strict adherence to the rules
defined in RFC 4514, section 3, would likely cause some pain to
client applications. Things such as spaces between the RDN
components are not allowed, yet many people use them still since
they were allowed in the previous specification outlined in RFC
To deal with the special circumstances around validation of the DN
syntax, a configuration attribute is provided named
nsslapd-dn-validate-strict. This configuration attribute will
ensure that the value strictly adheres to the rules defined in RFC
4514, section 3 if it is set to on. If it is set to off, the server
will normalize the value before checking it for syntax violations.
Our current normalization function was designed to handle DN values
adhering to RFC 1779 or RFC 2253
Concerning the logic of escaping/unescaping/normalisation we could test how
openldap behaves in each case (as you've made it in "DN HEX HEX" bug).
For upgrades/migrations and double quotes in DNs: the two values may be left
during the upgrade (just in case someone uses them as-is) and then an
optional validation/cleaning script could be provided separately? The
sensitive part here is the whole o-NetscapeRoot tree: console using and
writing this type of values, replication agreement/management etc
As for the "related bugs" section i think another bug should be added (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199923), it concernes the same
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the 389-devel