[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Question on Your Comment
Kathy,
Kathy Dally wrote:
> In your comments on RFC 2252bis, I do not understand the last one in
> section 2.1:
>
> > > Servers are not required to provide the same or any text in the
> > > description part of the subschema values they maintain.
> >
> > The same should apply to the NAME and OBSOLETE fields of
> all the subschema
> > operational attribute values. In X.500, the information
> which is required
> > to be invariant with respect to an associated object
> identifier is that
> > which is given in the ATTRIBUTE, MATCHING-RULE,
> OBJECT-CLASS and NAME-FORM
> > information objects. These information objects map into
> subcomponents of
> > the AttributeTypeDescription, MatchingRuleDescription,
> > ObjectClassDescription,
> > and NameFormDescription ASN.1 types (respectively) with the
> component
> > identifier "information". The components of the above ASN.1 types
> > corresponding to the NAME, DESC and OBSOLETE fields in the LDAP
> > representation are all outside the "information" component
> (it just isn't
> > evident from the BNF).
>
> The problem is that the OBSOLETE field does not have any text. What
> have I missed?
I was speaking in a general sense that servers should not be required
to exactly duplicate the NAME, DESC and OBSOLETE fields as they appear
in the source definition.
> I'm concerned, too, about extending the
> statement to the
> NAME field in the AttributeTypeDescription. I don't think the server
> can change the name value arbitrarily because of the necessity for the
> client to use the name in order to know which attribute is present.
Removing the name isn't normally a prudent thing to do but it may be
necessary if a subschema has to contain two distinct definitions using
the same name.
Also, being able to put in additional localized names isn't a bad thing.
Regards,
Steven