Subject: Re: DN->DNS mapping in draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-05.txt

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:13:16 -0600

I believe we also need to consider the impact of the mapping change
to the future internationalization of the domain name system and
the introduction of the iDC (internationalDomainComponent).  As
currently defined, I think it will be rather straight forward to
describe a relationship between DC and iDC naming and develop
location mechanism(s) for DNs using DC, iDC, or mixed (DC/iDC)
naming.

It is a bit less clear how under the proposed new mapping one would
locate services of a DN contain a mixture of DC and iDC attribute
assertions in the DN.  Of hand, I think there are two approaches
which could be used:
	a) location uses only RDNs of one or the other attributes
	b) location uses RDNs containing either attribute

That is,
	iDC=foo,DC=bar

would map to:
	a)  DC location: "bar"
	    iDC location: "foo"
	b) combined location: "foo.bar"

I think a sane mapping of multiple valued RDNs containing both
DC and iDC could be defined (based upon what we know today about
IDN).

As the change appears not appear to preclude future extension
to support IDN and my other concerns have been adequately
addressed, I believe the change should be made and the
document progressed to WG Last Call.

Kurt

---

From: Roland Hedberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:31:08 +0100

On Thursday 22 March 2001 18:13, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> the introduction of the iDC (internationalDomainComponent).  

And I'd like to see that in another document.

Well worth doing, no question about that, but not in this document.

-- Roland

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:13:25 -0600

>Well worth doing, no question about that, but not in this document.

YES!  I am only "thinking about IDN".  I concur that it would
be unwise to mention IDN in any LDAP RFC at this point.

Kurt