RE: DN "a published table" clarification (a solution?)

["Ryan Moats" <rmoats@coreon.net>]

I THINK that works for me.  Of course, it follows that
interoperability needs to be verified.

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 3:13 PM
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: RE: DN "a published table" clarification (a solution?)


One approach might be to add to the end of 2.3.

  Note: A closed deployments of LDAP [1] MAY prescribe an
    alternative table of attribute type name strings
    to be used a local string representation of the
    distinguished names.  This specifications do not
    ensure the interoperability of local string
    representations nor that a particular local string
    unambiguously represents a distinguished name nor
    does this specification detail security considerations
    related to the use of alternative tables.
    The use of alternative tables is NOT RECOMMENDED.

Note that I offer this without any opinion (yet) as to
its appropriateness for inclusion in the I-D.