Re: Significance of name forms.

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Michael Ströder wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > Michael Ströder wrote:
> > > I did not find any text in X.501 or RFC 4512 which clearly says that.
> > > Especially RFC 4512 makes DIT structure rules optional. Maybe I'm
> > > missing something though.
> >
> > 12.6.2
> >
> > A name form is only a primitive element of the full specification
> > required to
> > constrain the form of the DIT to that
> > required by the administrative and naming authorities that determine the
> > naming policies of a given region of the DIT.
> > The remaining aspects of the specification of DIT structure are
> > discussed in
> > 12.6.5.
> >
> > 12.6.5 defines DIT Structure Rules.
>
> I already read this text carefully and I do see that there is some
> justification for your interpretation. But still I'm not 100% convinced
> because the X.501 text is written under the assumption that there is
> always a governing structure rule (besides one corner-case clarified in
> X.501(2010)).
>
> And it seems I'm not the only one who interpreted it differently:
>
> https://lists.forgerock.org/pipermail/opendj/2015-April/004508.html
>
> I don't claim to know *the* right interpretation. I'd vote to ask other
> vendors. I'd happily correct this in web2ldap if needed.

Any other interpretation is nonsense.

1) an entry may have multiple object classes but there is only one 
structuralObjectClass that governs the entry.

2) a schema may have many nameForms defined, and many DIT Structure 
Rules defined, but there is only one that governs a given entry.

Both of those facts are indisputable.

Now - nameForms only specify a structuralObjectClass that they control. 
It's up to the DIT Structure Rule to define where in the DIT they take 
effect.

If you have a schema with multiple nameForms defined, and you take your 
interpretation that nameForms take effect in the absence of DIT 
Structure Rules, then you get the nonsensical case of multiple nameForms 
applying to a single entry. That is already explicitly prohibited in the 
spec.

The spec is not under-defined. This is not an "interpretation" - these 
are facts.

--
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/