Re: LDAPsubentry

[Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 09:13 PM 11/18/99 -0700, Ed Reed wrote:
> >Hmmm...I made it structural, because that's how the X.500 subentry
> >is defined...I can see doing it either way.
> >
> >Any reaction from the X.500 community?  Does it matter to you,
> >one way or the other?  To be clear, the draft specifies ldapSubEntry
> >to be STRUCTURAL, and Kurt's proposal is to make it ABSTRACT,
> >instead.
> 
> I should note that my primary reason for desiring this change
> is reuse.  I need such a beast but don't want to get stuck with
> MUST cn.

A simpler alternative would be to make cn a MAY (which allows for
subclasses that use a different naming attribute).  Kurt, can you
provide an example where cn won't meet your needs?

-- 
Mark Smith
iPlanet Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
My words are my own, not my employer's.   Got LDAP?