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

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: 
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.

Why would that "require" to recognize additional names? Maybe one could come up with a wording listing the mandantory attribute type names and the optional aliases?

 Multiple
names leads to interoperability problems as it is inevitable
that some implementations will not recognize all of them.

But there are already multiple names out there in the wild. And sure there are already interoperability problems with that. My point is that listing the aliases would make implementors aware of it.

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

IMHO either we'd be able to disallow use of aliases or we have to make implementors aware of them.

Ciao, Michael.