[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name
- To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name
- From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:40:18 +0100
- Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
- In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030210121802.01a5c210@127.0.0.1>
- References: <HBF.20030106vvho@bombur.uio.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20030104080644.02575450@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030103160119.024dab60@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030103120045.024457a8@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102084017.01d16830@127.0.0.1> <HBF.20030102wumy@bombur.uio.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20030103071943.031255d8@127.0.0.1> <3E15E938.E1B21014@sun.com> <HBF.20030103yquk@bombur.uio.no> <HBF.20030104hke6@bombur.uio.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20030118110326.01a04220@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030210121802.01a5c210@127.0.0.1>
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> Hence, I suggest replacing the PARAGRAPH with:
>
> While the <descr> form is generally preferred, the <numericoid>
> form should be used when an unambiguous short name (descriptor)
> is not available. See Section 6.2 for additional discussion
> of Short Names (descriptors).
I think something about which context the oid has is necessary.
Naming context as well as as attribute type vs. object class.
Otherwise people will be likely to think that if they only define
one OID with name 'foo', the server doesn't need to know that
'foo' is an attribute type and not an object class.
Sorry, it's too late now for me to come up with a good wording.
--
Hallvard