RE: Summary of [Models] issues from WG Last Call

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

At 12:09 PM 2/13/2003, Christopher Oliva wrote:
>My original proposal was intended to modify the text to say that although value encodings may be modified, the abstract value itself cannot be changed.

So, you are proposing transliteration would be disallowed.
I believe the consensus of the WG is that transliteration
should continue to be allowed.

>However, if there is a need to have text that tells a server how to validate values after transliterations, I suggest adding a table that identifies a suitable matching rule for each syntax (or role that into the syntax definition in which case the DirectoryString syntax text should be updated).

Except for stating a general minimum requirement, what you
propose is what the current approach offers:  per syntax
value preservation rules.  As you don't appear to be
arguing that general minimum is too loose, I don't see how
your table suggestion changes any of the implementation
requirements.

Kurt