|
>>> Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com> 1/12/04 3:02:28 PM >>>
>Jim Sermersheim wrote: >> >> I propose aligning the Protocol text for Add and Modify DN with X.511. >> I worry about breaking implementations though. I know of at least one >> implementation that is aligned with the wording in X.511. I imagine most >> or all X.500 vendors also follow this. >> >> Comments? > >I am not sure this change is justified. What problem are you trying to >address? The language in 2251 is fairly clear; I suspect we will break >implementations if we make this change to the LDAP protocol. > >-Mark The problem is one of consistency and proper alignment with X.500. I was asked by a directory developer whether the attributes of an RDN MUST also be named in the attribute list during an add. My reply was that according to the protocol document and RFC 2251, yes. Then I was asked how the same scenario works with Modify DN. My reply was that there was no guidance. This prompted me to look at the X.500 specifications and found the discrepancy. You're right, the language in RFC 2251 is clear, but it is opposite of that in X.511. Aside from possibly making some server implementations overly restrictive, What justification is there to leave the language as it is? I can't think of a reason as to why it would have been added without an explanation as to why it is different from the instructions in X.511. If we decide to leave the imperative for compatability with older implementations, we need to explain why it is there.
Jim |