Subject: Re: Protocol: Add, ModDN, and RDN attrs

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:25:43 -0700

>>> Mark Smith <[email-masked]> 1/12/04 3:02:28 PM >>>
>Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>
>> I propose aligning the Protocol text for Add and Modify DN with
X.511.
>> I worry about breaking implementations though. I know of at least
one
>> implementation that is aligned with the wording in X.511. I imagine
most
>> or all X.500 vendors also follow this.
>> 
>> Comments?
>
>I am not sure this change is justified. What problem are you trying to

>address? The language in 2251 is fairly clear; I suspect we will break

>implementations if we make this change to the LDAP protocol.
>
>-Mark

The problem is one of consistency and proper alignment with X.500. I
was asked by a directory developer whether the attributes of an RDN MUST
also be named in the attribute list during an add. My reply was that
according to the protocol document and RFC 2251, yes. Then I was asked
how the same scenario works with Modify DN. My reply was that there was
no guidance. This prompted me to look at the X.500 specifications and
found the discrepancy.
 
You're right, the language in RFC 2251 is clear, but it is opposite of
that in X.511. Aside from possibly making some server implementations
overly restrictive, What justification is there to leave the language as
it is? I can't think of a reason as to why it would have been added
without an explanation as to why it is different from the instructions
in X.511. If we decide to leave the imperative for compatability with
older implementations, we need to explain why it is there.
 
Jim