[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: DC/UID

At 11:49 AM 12/12/2002, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> To avoid adding a reference to RFC 1274 and possible other RFCs,
>> I suggest the specifications for DC and UID be directly incorporated
>> into draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema.
>
>I like that, except that if it is done I think we should also define
>object classes which use them (account and domain), and attribute host
>which is used by account.  So it does explode a bit.

That, I believe, would be going too much against our
charter statement that LDAP non-"core" Schema is beyond
our scope.

I'm willing to consider both 'dc' and 'uid' as "core" as they
are specifically mentioned in RFC 2253.  In the current
DN draft, they are clearly MUSTs and hence an appropriate
specification is necessary.

However, if we go the registry route, one could argue that
'dc' and 'uid' could safely be removed from the table and
that incorporation of the attribute types (and matching rule)
is unnecessary.

So, it may be best to table this discussion until consensus
is reached on [models] and [dn].

Kurt