Re: IETF ldapbis WG LastCall:draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Steven Legg wrote:
> > I know X.520 specifies this 
> > limit, so it probably isn't too likely, but it would be nice.
>
> In X.520 the limit is an upper limit on size,

Why was the sematic of this changed in LDAP? IMO it does not make sense to 
define a "minimum upper bound" at all. I'd rather consider the term to be a 
paradox.

> My recommendation is that the user schema draft simply remove all
> the upper bounds to avoid confusion.

+1

Ciao, Michael.