[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: DN "a published table" clarification
At 01:07 PM 12/22/00 -0600, Salter, Thomas A wrote:
>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.
DN generation should not require schema discovery as schema
discovery requires DN generation.
>What is the rationale behind limiting naming attributes to such a very small list?
To provide an unambiguous string representation of a distinguished
name which can be encoded and decoded with ease.
>(Back in v2, the names in this table didn't even match attribute names.
Yes, they were keywords. In v3, one can also view the attribute type
name strings provided in the table as being independent of the
attribute type short names provided in schema. Where as the schema
can be extended such that commonName is recognized not only be the
short name "cn" but other names (such as "commonName" and "cname"),
but RFC2253 requires that the name "CN" be used for this attribute
type in the DN representation.
>v3 definition sorted out issues like "cn" and "commonName" both identifying
>the same attribute.)
No. The v3 DN spec says you must use "CN" for commonName.