Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name

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

At 02:53 PM 2/11/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> Isn't this more appropriately covered in 6.2?
>
>Maybe.  But wouldn't you just end up restating and expanding "the
><numericod> form should be used..." part?

The problem is making statements in 1.3 is that it is
intended to be referenced by many specifications and
any statement we make here may not be appropriate for
all cases.  So, even if we have to restate and expand in
6.2, that's the approach I prefer.

>Something like
>
>"Short names may only be used in contexts where the server can
>unambiguously translate them to numeric OIDs and knows what kind of
>entity the OID represents (i.e. whether it represents an object class,
>an attribute type, or something else.)"
>
>> (And as a follow-up: Is this covered appropriately in 6.2?)
>
>I can't see that it's covered at all.

Fair enough.  How about adding before the paragraph starting with
        Procedures for registering short names (descriptors) ...

the paragraph:
        Implementations SHOULD avoid the use of registered
        short names (descriptors) or, when not available,
        an object identifiers in numeric form, to avoid
        ambiguity.