>>> Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> schrieb am 28.08.2022 um 18:08 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > Hi! > > Good catch! I overlooked that! I'll try with that change and report.
Of course that was it! Worked now. Sorry for the noise, but I didn't see it before, even when looking at it. > > Thanks, > Ulrich > > 26.08.2022 21:09:16 John C. Pfeifer <[email protected]>: > >> Doesn’t it need to be: >> >> newrdn: cn=subntbcst-tftp@247/tcp >> >> // >> John Pfeifer >> Division of Information Technology >> University of Maryland, College Park >> >>> On Aug 26, 2022, at 7:29 AM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I'm programming some automated changes to our LDAP database, and I have an >>> issue: >>> >>> # Error: Invalid DN syntax (34), additional info: invalid new RDN >>> dn: cn=subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp,dc=services,dc=net,dc=...,dc=de >>> changetype: modrdn >>> newrdn: subntbcst-tftp@247/tcp >>> deleteoldrdn: 1 >>> >>> So is the new RDN "subntbcst-tftp@247/tcp" really invalid? If so it seems an >>> older version of OpenLDAP accepted that as we have such an entry: >>> >>> dn: cn=subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp,dc=services,dc=net,dc=...,dc=de >>> objectClass: ipService >>> cn: subntbcst_tftp >>> cn: subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp >>> createTimestamp: 20130719093351Z >>> ... >>> >>> I saw this exaple in RFC 2849 (so I thought my LDIF shuld be OK): >>> >>> # Modify an entry’s relative distinguished name >>> dn: cn=Paul Jensen, ou=Product Development, dc=airius, dc=com >>> changetype: modrdn >>> newrdn: cn=Paula Jensen >>> deleteoldrdn: 1 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ulrich >>> >>>
