[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Comment on I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-08.txt
At 08:13 AM 2002-08-28, David Chadwick wrote:
>I dont like the general thrust of this ID regarding the use of alternate
>DN strings.
>
>I would like the following text from 2.3 to be struck out of the current
>ID, as it unduly prejudices the use of additiional DN strings
>
>"As no extension could reasonable require all existing
> implementations be updated to recognize additional type name
> strings, this table is not extensible."
The phrase "This table is not extensible" is necessary for
interoperability of the RECOMMENDED algorithm. The "As
no extension could... " part was intended only to explain
why the table isn't extensible, not to unduly prejudices
the use of additional DN strings (beyond that detailed in
5.3). I am fine with striking the "As ...," part.
I'll comment separately on your section 5.3 suggestion.
Kurt