Re: Significance of name forms.

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Michael Ströder wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But there is no reference from a DIT structure rule to the structural
> object class. They are only associated via the name forms:
>
> http://www.stroeder.com/img/LDAP_Schema_References.png

Correct.

> > 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.
>
> Even if there is a governing structural rule for an entry there can be
> more than one possible name form.

Irrelevant. There can only be one DIT Structure Rule for an entry, and a 
DIT Structure Rule can only reference one nameForm. For any given entry, 
only one nameForm may be in effect.

>  From X.501(1993) section 12.6.2:
>
>    If different sets of naming attributes are required for entries of a
> given
>    structural object class, then a name form must be specified for each
>    distinct set of attributes to be used for naming.
>
> Almost the same in X.501(2012) section 13.7.2.
>
> And you (and others) agreed on that back in 2008:

Irrelevant. This references entries of a given structuralObjectClass 
that exist in different parts of the DIT and thus governed by different 
DIT Structure Rules.

> http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200807/msg00000.html
>
>  > That is already explicitly prohibited in the spec.
>
> Any implementation not supporting more than one possible name form is
> broken.
>
> => Your argument is not sufficient.

Nonsense.

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