RE: CIM24 schema tweaks

["Quevedo, Felix" <FQuevedo@smartpipes.com>]

All,

Interesting... Having the opportunity to be at the directory server vendor
side, and now as a server user,  I do believe the spec work has been
wonderful. Functional inter-operations are possible thanks to the effort.
Schema inter-operations... we are not there yet.

We all know there could be many implementations, but only one (one hopes)
guideline/recommendation/standard document. It would be a daunting task to
cover all possible interpretations (implementations). This may be beyond the
scope of the spec. 

To all of this we should also consider the limitations of the underlining
technology on which that implementation is based on. Is there a Directory
server that supports near 100% the LDAP spec? Maybe. Is it the one we all
use? Sure not.

Let's take MS ActiveDirectory (pardon the example). It does not support
multiple names or attribute superiors or matching rules or ... It does
however have other features like LinkID's to define relationships. So we
have to take the spec and "adjust" it to the technology. Who should do it?
The developer? The vendor? The spec editor?

The industry is hungry for guidance from the standard bodies. Not
necessarily the ultimate solution.

Thanks to all!!
Félix E Quevedo
:) Smile, everything is possible!
E-Mail: fquevedo@smartpipes.com
Voice: 614 923 6242
Fax: 614 923 6299

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	rmoats@coreon.net [mailto:rmoats@coreon.net] 
Sent:	Friday, December 01, 2000 23:36
To:	Mark Wahl
Cc:	Larry S. Bartz; Quevedo Felix; IETF Policy WG LIST;
ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject:	Re: CIM24 schema tweaks

Mark-

I realize that but doesn't, that sort of put the cart
before the horse, by creating an implementation barrier?

Thinking about it, I suppose the document could define
a new matching rule and say "in case your directory
implementation doesn't support this you can use <blah>",
but I was looking for what <blah> could be besides
caseIgnoreMatch.

Ryan

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:21:05 -0800
>From: Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>
>Subject: Re: CIM24 schema tweaks
>To: rmoats@coreon.net
>Cc: "Larry S. Bartz" <lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov>, 
"Quevedo Felix" <FQuevedo@smartpipes.com>, IETF Policy WG LIST 
<policy@raleigh.ibm.com>, ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org, 
ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>
>rmoats@coreon.net wrote:
>> 
>
>> 
>> Well, as an editor, I get to play the "no complaints 
without
>> making a suggestion" card.  What do you suggest as the
>> equality match?  Based on my reading of the X.500-series 
and
>> LDAP RFCs the only option for Directory Strings is
>> caseIgnoreMatch, and I'm not at all comfortable with
>> declaring that as the matching rule for a syntax that holds
>> UTF-8 strings.
>
>There can be other matching rules for Directory String syntax 
>attributes besides case ignore.  Case ignore is just the most 
>common.  You can have a Case Sensitive, or other more complex
>ones if you define them.
>
>Mark Wahl
>Sun Microsystems Inc.