Errata Search
RFC Number:		Errata ID:
Source of RFC		Status:	All/Any Verified+Reported Verified Reported Held for Document Update Rejected
Area Acronym:	All/Any app art gen int ops rai rtg sec tsv wit	Type:	All/Any Editorial Technical
WG Acronym:		Submitter Name:
Other:	All/Any IAB INDEPENDENT IRTF Legacy Editorial	Date Submitted:
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 2849, "The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) - Technical Specification", June 2000

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app
See Also: RFC 2849 w/ inline errata

---

Errata ID: 4009
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Giovanni Cannata
Date Reported: 2014-06-09
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-06-11

Section LDIF Syntax says:

change-moddn             = ("modrdn" / "moddn") SEP
                            "newrdn:" (    FILL rdn /
                                       ":" FILL base64-rdn) SEP
                            "deleteoldrdn:" FILL ("0" / "1")  SEP
                            0*1("newsuperior:"
                            (    FILL distinguishedName /
                             ":" FILL base64-distinguishedName) SEP)

It should say:

change-moddn             = ("modrdn" / "moddn") SEP
                            "newrdn:" (    FILL rdn /
                                       ":" FILL base64-rdn) SEP
                            "deleteoldrdn:" FILL ("0" / "1")  SEP [8]
                            0*1("newsuperior:"
                            (    FILL distinguishedName /
                             ":" FILL base64-distinguishedName) SEP)

Note 8: If deleteoldrdn is "0" the old rdn will be kept; if it is "1"
the old rdn will be deleted.

Notes:

There is no formal specification of the meaning of the "deleteoldrdn" value 0 or 1. 1 stands for deletion, 0 stands for keeping the old rdn. Add a note to explain the value meaning.

-----
Verifier note:
It is correct that the meaning of "deleteoldrdn" is never explained in the document. The proposed resolution is a reasonable fix for that, and such an explanation is needed.

Report New Errata