RE: DN "published table" opinion

[<rmoats@coreon.net>]

>>My reading of -01 is that it does
>>not allow implementations to accept strings that aren't
>>in the table.
>
>Like RFC 2253, -01 does not say implementations cannot accept
>DNs with other type name strings, it says implementations 
cannot
>generate DN strings with other type names strings.  That is,
>there is room to be "liberal in what you accept" but not
>"loose in what you generate".
>
>>So, I'd like a statement of
>>the type "Implementations MAY/SHOULD accept an AttributeType
>>string that is not in the table in lieu of OIDs" to 
actually 
>>codify this "be liberal" approach.
>
>How about we add a statement to section 3:
>        Implementations MUST recognize AttributeType string
>        type names (keywords) listed in the Section 2 table.
>        Though implementations MAY recognize other 
AttributeType
>        string type names (keywords), DN conformant to this
>        specification MUST be generated as described in
>        Section 2.
>
>This codifies the "be liberal in what you accept, be strict
>in what you produce" approach.  

This covers my concerns quite nicely.  Thanks Kurt.

Ryan