Subject: alias entries in LDAP

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:36:40 -0800

As the use of alias entries to provide alias names is not
well defined in LDAP, I suggest the following text be
added to [Models]:

2.2.3. Alias Names
     
  An alias, or alias name, is "an name for an object, provided by
  the use of alias entries" [X.501].  This technical specification
  does not detail the use alias entries to provide aliases.  This
  may be detailed in future documents.

and the alias schema be removed from the technical specification.

Note that like text is already provided for subentries.

Kurt

---

From: David Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:41:55 +0000

Kurt

I dont know what problem you have in retaining aliases. I think it would
be retrograde to remove them, as support for them is fully worked out in
the LDAP model and the protocol. The only tricky thing is what to do in
the presence of access controls, but given that LDAP does not have an
access control model, this should not cause there to be a problem with
aliases.

David

-- 
*****************************************************************

David W. Chadwick, BSc PhD
Professor of Information Systems Security
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel: +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile: +44 77 96 44 7184
Email: [email-masked]
Home Page:  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Research Projects: http://sec.isi.salford.ac.uk
Understanding X.500:  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars: http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string: MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
PGP Key ID is 0xBC238DE5

*****************************************************************

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:55:55 -0800

At 10:41 AM 2002-03-06, David Chadwick wrote:
>I dont know what problem you have in retaining aliases.

The problem is that alias entries, like subentries and knowledge
information, are under specified in LDAP.  While ASID provided
schema for each, ASID basically left these as areas of future
standardization.  ASID, LDAPext, and individuals have pursued
such standardization.  I-Ds were submitted in each of these
areas.  For whatever reason, the alias I-D was never progressed.

This group is not chartered to specify anything which was
the existing technical specification left to future
standardization.  Such would be considered "new features".

>I think it would
>the LDAP model and the protocol.

Actually, there are numerous issues which need to be addressed
in the LDAP model.

We cannot revisit these issues in this WG, we must do as
ASID did and leave these areas (aliases, subentries, and
knowledge information) to future standardization.