RE: ;binary transfer of the binary syntax

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Kurt,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2000 14:24
> To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
> Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: RE: ;binary transfer of the binary syntax
> 
> 
> At 04:03 PM 9/21/00 +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
> >This is one of those situations where using names instead of OIDs in
> >the protocol bites.
> 
> One of my pet peeves is that RFC 2251 recognizes that names 
> are non-unique:
>    Attribute type textual names are non-unique, as two different
>    specifications (neither in standards track RFCs) may 
> choose the same
>    name.
> 
> but requires:
>    If the server has a textual name for an attribute type, it 
> MUST use a
>    textual name for attributes returned in search results.  
> The dotted-
>    decimal OBJECT IDENTIFIER is only used if there is no textual name
>    for an attribute type.
> 
> I believe we need to allow use of OIDs ESPECIALLY where the server
> has knowledge that the requested name has multiple definitions
> (in independent subschemas controlling entries within search scope).

I agree. And we should return the respective OIDs for *both* of the
attribute types (rather than just the OID for one and the requested
name for the other) to avoid DUAs mistaking one attribute type for
the other.

Regards,
Steven