Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 12:40 PM 2/10/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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.

Isn't this more appropriately covered in 6.2?

(And as a follow-up: Is this covered appropriately in 6.2?)

Kurt