Subject: Auto-reply: Re: AuthzIDs or DNs, but not both

From: Uppili Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Dec 1999 13:24:12 -0800

Hi:  I will be on vacation from 12/10/1999 until  01/03/2000

If this is an emergency requiring immediate attention, please contact
the following people

as appropriate.

For LDAP (OID) product development related problems and issues, please
contact either Raj or Daniel (below).  If you send an e-mail, please
copy both.

Raj Gupta ([email-masked]) at (650)-506-4635

Daniel Shish ([email-masked]) at (650)-506-4635

For LDAP (OID) product management,  schedule and pre-sale support
issues, please contact:

If you send an e-mail, please copy both.

Michael Mesaros ([email-masked]) 650-506-4443

David Saslav ([email-masked]) 650-506-6969

For information on Oracle LDAP Schema Council please contact:

Ashish Kolli ([email-masked]) at (650)-506-3039

For administrative issues and assistance please contact:

Veronica aguilar ([email-masked]) at 650-607-2065

Happy Holidays!

Regards!

-Uppili Srinivasan

Subject: Re: AuthzIDs or DNs, but not both
From: Jeff Hodges <[email-masked]>
To: IETF LDAP Extensions WG <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Dec 1999 13:21:51

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> Though I disagree that creatorsName is a MAY (see RFC2252, 5.1.2 says
> SHOULD), 

This is another case of stuff that needs to be considered for clean-up on the
way to Draft Standard maturity level for LDAP as a whole. Given that neither of
the requirements are "MUST", seems to me that that functionality is optional if
one has good reason (which is the definition of "SHOULD", after all). 

JeffH