Subject: Re: Distinguished values

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:51:52 -0700

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth [email-masked]> 3/15/04 11:12:10 AM
>>
>
>[Protocol] 4.9 Modify DN Operation:
>
>If an entry containing the attribute cn:FOO is renamed to cn=foo,
>MAY/SHOULD/SHOULD NOT the server replace cn:FOO with cn:foo in the
>entry? The current text (describing the newrdn parameter) does
>not permit this.

MUST NOT, as the name already exists. Unfortunately this is a common
end-user complaint.
 
I note that Protocol is missing language regarding the scenario where
newrdn should be the same as the existing rdn (when moving and not
renaming). I'll fix that.

>If an entry is renamed to cn=bar, may the server add the attribute
>cn:BAR?

Yes, but I doubt there are many that do,
 
Jim

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:38:36 +0100

> renaming).

Partly it does - but it seems all wrong to me:

>    - newrdn: the new RDN of the entry. If an attribute value in the 
>      newrdn does not already exist in the entry (either as part of the 
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      old RDN or as a non-distinguished value), it is added. If it
       ^^^^^^^
>      cannot be added, an appropriate error is returned. 

But the RDN - and thus the values it contains - is not part of the
entry.  Besides, this wording implies that the values in the RDN must be
identical to the distinguished values, not merely equivalent.  Maybe:

    - newrdn: the new RDN of the entry.  Attribute values in the new
      RDN that had no matching values in the entry (and thus did
      not exist in the old RDN), are added to the entry.

> Yes, but I doubt there are many that do,

Me too.

-- 
Hallvard