[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

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

To: Norbert Klasen <norbert+lists.ietf-ldapbis@burgundy.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:11:51 -0700
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <210020353.1053376777@[10.10.9.3]>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030505170904.02aa92c0@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030505170904.02aa92c0@127.0.0.1>

At 11:39 AM 5/19/2003, Norbert Klasen wrote:
>the schema in many LDAP servers contains an alternate name for those attributes, whose name is an abbreviation from the name of the respective X.500 attribute type, e.g. 'cn' and 'commonName' or 'st' and 'stateOrProvinceName'.  Should this be reflected in the user-schema document?

Personally, I think they should not be listed as that would
require implementations to recognize additional names.  Multiple
names leads to interoperability problems as it is inevitable
that some implementations will not recognize all of them.

Certainly LDAP implementations are allowed to recognize
additional names... but they should not assume others do.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>

References:
- IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
  - From: Norbert Klasen <norbert+lists.ietf-ldapbis@burgundy.dyndns.org>

Prev by Date: Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
Next by Date: Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-05.txt
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread