RE: DN "a published table" clarification

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

I agree that the attributes in 2252 are uninteresting as naming attributes.

I think the exhaustive list should be any attribute (or perhaps any
attribute with DirectoryString syntax) defined in the schema.  What is the
rationale behind limiting naming attributes to such a very small list?

(Back in v2, the names in this table didn't even match attribute names.  The
v3 definition sorted out issues like "cn" and "commonName" both identifying
the same attribute.)