Subject: parent/child vs. immediate superior/subordinate

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:44:26 +0100

[Protocol] 4.7 talks about "parent" entries and [LDAPURL] 7 about
"children".  These words are not defined anywhere.  Either they should
be changed to immediate superior/subordinate entries, or [Models] 2.1
should define parent/children as well as superior/subordinate.  I vote
for the latter, since these words are so common.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:01:12 +0100

I wrote:
> "children".

Also, [Models] 2.2.1 talks about "siblings".

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 18:02:37 +0100

Fine.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:57:14 -0800

>for the latter, since these words are so common.

I concur with the latter suggestion for normative text.
Immediate superior/subordinate is, in my opinion, more precise
than parent/child.  But adding an informative comment may aide
some readers.  For example, here's how I suggest rewriting the
[Models, 2.2.1] text to avoid "siblings":

  An entry's relative distinguished name must be unique among
  all immediate subordinates of the entry's immediate superior
  (i.e., all siblings).

And I suggest adding the following note to [Models, 2.1]:

  Note: An entry's immediate superior is also known as the entry's        
        parent and an entry's immediate subordinate is also known
        as the entry's child.

Kurt