[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: schema-07 comments
Kathy Dally writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth:
>> 2.23 postalAddress
>> 2.27 registeredAddress
>
>> "15 Main St., Ottawa, Canada"
>
> Please use the LDAP syntax, "15 Main
> St.$Ottawa$Canada".
> kld: No. The example is a single address.
Eh? "$" doesn't separate different addresses, it is a separator
between lines of one address. Look at the Postal Address examples
in [Syntaxes].
> Escaping the ","s is fixed.
What escaping?
>> 2.43 x500UniqueIdentifier
>
>> In X.520 [X.520], this attribute type is called
>> uniqueIdentifier. This is a different attribute type from both the
>> "uid" and "uniqueIdentifier" attribute types.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you mean an LDAP "uniqueIdentifier" attribute type, that is not
> defined in this document. Where is it defined?
>
> kld: It is in RFC 1274. However, we are trying to avoid references to
> that RFC. If "(uniqueIdentifier is specified in RFC 1274.)", was
> added to the paragraph would that be ok? Would RFC 1274 have to be
> included as an Informative Reference?
I have no idea. How about:
This is a different attribute type from both the "uid" and
the obsolete "uniqueIdentifier" LDAP attribute types.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> Also, see 2.39 in the I-D.
OK:
> The uid attribute type contains computer system login names
> associated with the object. (Source: RFC 1274,
> RFC 2798). Each name is one value of this multi-valued attribute.
Hm. I wouldn't call RFC 2798 (inetOrgPerson) a source for uid, since
it's years newer than the use of uid in RFC 2253. If you count RFCs
newer than uid as sources, isn't [Schema] itself just as good a source?
As far as I can tell, the source for uid is buried in RFC 2253 which
says that LDAP 'uid' = X.500 'userid', combined with RFC 1274 for
'userid'.
>> 1.1 Situation
>
>> Section 3.4 of
>> this document supercedes the technical specification for the 'dc'
> kld: not in my original
Fixed after submission, then. I've just verified that this sentence is
in the official -07 draft.
>> 7.1 Normative
>
>> ...[ROADMAP] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Technical
> Specification Road Map",
>
> Kill the '...'.
> kld: I don't understand what's wrong.
The '...' in front of '[ROADMAP]' should be ' ', unless '...' has some
special meaning I don't know about.
>> Appendix A Changes RFC 2256
>
> s/Changes/Changes made since/.
>
> There are more changes:
>
> - Removed '{number}' (minimum lower bound?) after the SYNTAX oid for
> all attributes that had that.
Whoops, I think I should have said 'minimum _upper_ bound'.
--
Hallvard