> On 03/25/2011 07:12 AM, Luke Schierer wrote: <snip> >> Should the 389ds be able to understand "usercertificate;binary", and is >> this a misconfiguration on my part in the directory server, or is that >> not >> something I should be expecting the directory to understand? > the ;binary option was defined in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2251.txt > but dropped in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4511.txt (see C.1.7. Section > 4.1.5.1 (Binary Option) and others) > > So the real fix would be to change the client app to not use ";binary". > You could also file a bug/RFE against 389 to add support for legacy apps > that still use ";binary". Another fix would be to add a duplicate > attribute "usercertificate;binary" which is a duplicate of the > userCertificate attribute. Thanks for this information. Based on your reply, I have submitted a bug to my upstream vendor for the client app. I would like to try creating an attribute, "usercertificate;binary" as a temporary work around while I wait for the client app to be fixed. However, when I go into the console to the configuration tab and then into the schema object in the tree, I get an error when I attempt to create the attribute. As soon as I type in the semi-colon character in the attribute name, the text "Attribute Name" turns red and the "ok" button greys out. It appears that is an illegal attribute name. If I were to manually edit the schema files, would it work, or would it break things? Thanks!! Luke -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
