Subject: DN "published table" opinion

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:11:49 -0800

The DN string representation [RFC2253] is used in LDAP to
transfer a DN [X.501] between two protocol peers.  The
format must unambiguously represent a DN.

Numeric OIDs provide unambiguous naming.  Attribute type names
do not.  The published table mechanism is designed to allow
use of common attribute type names in a manner which eliminates
the ambiguity.

I believe adding a statement allowing alternative tables
would add ambiguity as to which table was in use which
cannot be resolved with adding "new features".  I hence
oppose adding such a statement.

Kurt

---

From: "Ryan Moats" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:25:27 -0600

Kurt-

As I read this, I see what you are opposing, but what are you
proposing in its place?

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: DN "published table" opinion

Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:24:47 -0800

>As I read this, I see what you are opposing, but what are you

I do hope to offer a proposal for discussion by IETF#50.

Kurt