Subject: Re: 'dc' and 'uid' in User Schema

From: [email-masked] (Richard V Huber)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:50:29 -0400

In principle, I agree it makes sense to pull everything into the User
Schema I-D.  But in the specific case of dc, I wonder if it wouldn't be
better to leave it separate, because I suspect it will need to be
revised once the IDN WG's direction becomes clear.

Rick Huber

: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:47:32 -0700
: To: [email-masked]
: From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
: Subject: 'dc' and 'uid' in User Schema
: 
: RFC 2253 says 'dc' and 'uid' needs to be recognized by LDAP
: implementations which are described in RFC 1274 (and 2247).
: 
: Like other information we need to extract from RFC 1274, I
: suggest we incorporate the specification of 'dc' and 'uid'
: directly into the User Schema I-D.  I note that RFC 2247,
: Section 4, provides an updated specification of 'dc'.  Also,
: RFC 2798 provides an LDAPv3 attribute type description for
: 'uid'.
: 
: Please note this is not a call to suck in all of RFC 1274
: defined schema, but only that schema which the LDAPv3 TS
: relies on.
: 
: Comments?
: 
: Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:22:22 -0700

>revised once the IDN WG's direction becomes clear.

I suspect it will not need to be revised.  The specification
of DC allows for any ASCII encoded domain name whether it
comes from the existing DNS, IDNa, a UTF-8 base IDN, or
whatever other IDN might be eventually look like.  It's
clear that an ASCII Compatible Encoding of International
Domain Names will be provided (though it may not be clear
which ACE will be used and where the functionality will
be provided).   I believe the wording used in RFC 2247,
Section 4 to describe 'dc' to be general enough to support
all of IDN possibilities.

However, it's clear we need to include a description of DC
within the LDAPv3 technical specification.  Because it's very
small (just a few lines), I much rather see it just incorporated
in the User Schema I-D.  Otherwise, we might as well declare
RFC 2247 as "core"... but that's not an option I would support.

Kurt