CUPI.NET - meaning of LdapType.Unknown

Hi

What's the meaning of LdapType.Unknown in a FullUser? The name seems to suggest something undefinied - which I'm sure it isn't.

In fact, looking at the wiki, 3 isn't even a valid valid for LdapType: http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Cisco_Unity_Connection_Provisioning_Interface_(CUPI)_API_--_User_API, so I'd expect my mailboxes to return 1. Users without ldap sync properly return LdapType.None (0), and if I have a user whose ldap integration is inactive, it properly returns LdapType.Inactive (1).

I haven't checked the source yet, but something is off. Could it be that it's a binary add, so if a user that does authentication and is integrated, we have 0x01 & 0x10 = 0x10 and thus it's merely the "Unknown" that has me confused and it really means "the user is active and also does ldap authentication"

0,1,2,4 and the only legal values but there was a data dictionary floating around at one point that had 3 (combo of 1 and 2) for synch and authenticate - I don't think that ever saw the light of day as a concept so I just left 3 defined and put it as unknown. 

But why are all my users that are synced and can authenticate the value 3? That seems to suggest that this value is alive and kicking. Unknown just really threw me given that everything is fine and proper with those users.

Looking at the data dictionary for 10.5.2 (included in CUDLI if you're interested) the LdapType has this entry:

Type Name: LdapType

Description: LDAP configuration information for a user.

Values:

Value: 0

Name: None

Description: User does not have LDAP enabled.

Value: 1

Name: Sync

Description: LDAP synchronization enabled.

Value: 2

Name: Authenticate

Description: LDAP authentication enabled.

Value: 4

Name: Inactive

Description: LDAP is enabled but temporarily inactive for the user.

=============

So 3 is a combination of 1 and 2 (bit flag field) - hence no entry for 3 explicitly.  I pull most of the descriptions right from the data dictionary, hence the 3 not being explicitly called out. 

So my suspicions were correct (I didn't bother checking CUDLI though as you know I've been horsing around with it a bit )

Shouldn't the enum then maybe be renamed to something like AuthenticationAndSync so that it is more descriptive (given that there's no official name something has to be made up). The name of the value 3 first threw me and I suppose I'm no the only one.