RE: DN "a published table" clarification

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

Well, I interpret it differently.

RFC2253, 2.3 says,

"If the AttributeType is in a published table of attribute types associated
with LDAP [4], ...".

I take that to mean the table is the entire reference [4], namely RFC2252.
Thus the names for all attributes defined in RFC2252 can be used.

The table in section 2.3 is introduced as,
 "As an example, strings for a few of the attribute types frequently seen in
RDNs include:"

The table is clearly identified as an example, not as an exhaustive list of
all allowed attribute names.


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
 > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 5:55 PM
 > To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
 > Subject: DN "a published table" clarification
 > 
 > 
 > I believe that RFC 2253, Section 2.3 was unclear when it
 > referred to "a published table".  I fully concur with Mark
 > Wahl's 11/1/2000 post that the table being referred to is
 > the table published within the section.  In the revision DN
 > I-D, I offer a clarification to this effect.  If others
 > believe RFC2253 was actually referring to some other table,
 > please speak up.  The type name string restrictions remains
 > as specified in RFC2253, 2.3.
 > 
 > I acknowledge that many, but not all, implementations generate
 > DNs which is not allowed by RFC2253 (when using LDAPv3) and/or
 > RFC1779 (when using RFC1779).  However, unless there is specific
 > lack of completeness or clarity or technical weakness of within
 > the specification which someone can point out, I cannot offer
 > any edit.
 > 
 > Kurt
 >