Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-rfc2253-02.txt

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:04:55 +0100

2.3 (Converting AttributeTypeAndValue) says:

  If the AttributeType has a registered short name [REGISTRY], that
  registered short name, a <descr>, is used.

I think the short name "SHOULD" be used, and MUST be used only if it
is in the table in 2.3 in RFC2253.  That retains compatibiblity with
implementations that followed RFC2253 and used the dotted-decimal
form for other attribute types.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 10:15:47 -0800

At 08:04 AM 1/2/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>I think the short name "SHOULD" be used,

It is.  Section 2: "This section defines the RECOMMENDED algorithm..."

>and MUST be used only if it is in the table in 2.3 in RFC2253.

Section 3 mandates that implementations recognize names in
the table.  Is there a need to mandate their use?

Considering that some implementations took the table as being
"an example" and as DC is not in [4], there actually be implementations
generating "0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25=foo,0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25=com"
(or the equivalent using the #ber-hex notation).  Are these
implementations to be outlawed?

>That retains compatibiblity with

I think we need to continue to allow use of numericoid instead
of descr.

Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:47:59 +0100

> It is.  Section 2: "This section defines the RECOMMENDED algorithm..."

Oh, good.

> the table.  Is there a need to mandate their use?

No.  I wrote that because thought there was an implicit MUST already,
and wanted to restrict it a little.

> implementations to be outlawed?

No.  Never mind, it's fine as it is.

-- 
Hallvard