LDAP subentry schema request for last call

["Ed Reed" <eer@OnCallDBA.COM>]

After reviewing the recent comments on LDAPsubentry (and posting my reply), and reviewing where the March 9 version of the doc (as posted on the LDUP wg web site) stands with regard to MUST/MAY (cn) and naming, I think the document, as published, should go forward for last call.

With regard to naming, the doc says LDAPsubentry MAY be named by cn, which is where I think the concensus of the list now resides.

With regard to MUST/MAY {cn} as an attribute, the document now says MAY, and leaves the class as a STRUCTURAL class.  Of course, that means that a naming rule will need to use CN as it's naming attribute if no other attributes are defined on the class, which pretty much turns it into a MUST in those cases, but when other classes are derived from LDAPsubentry other attributes may also be defined, and then cn need not be used as a naming attribute.  I think we could also make it be MUST {cn} and require cns to be populated, even if they're not being used to name the LDAPsubentry, and I'll be happy to make that change after last call if needed.  I just don't see the need to bother, now.

With regard to making LDAPsubentry fully compatible with the X.500 subentry, it's been pointed out that people wanting to use the X.500 subentry should feel free to do so - it's incorporated by reference in the base LDAP definitions.  The purpose of this proposal is to define a subset of the X.500 functionality (and extend the structural rules by allowing nesting of LDAPsubentries) for use by certain LDAP applications which find the subset functionality a useful simplification.

So - Please, put out the last call for the draft as posted on the LDUP WG IETF Charter page, document draft-ietf-ldup-subentry-02.txt, dated 9 March 2000.

Ed


=================
Ed Reed
Reed-Matthews, Inc.
+1 801 796 7065
http://www.Reed-Matthews.COM