RE: Question on Your Comment

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Kathy,

Kathy Dally wrote:
> In your comments on RFC 2252bis, I do not understand the last one in
> section 2.1:
> 
> > >    Servers are not required to provide the same or any text in the
> > >    description part of the subschema values they maintain.
> > 
> > The same should apply to the NAME and OBSOLETE fields of 
> all the subschema
> > operational attribute values. In X.500, the information 
> which is required
> > to be invariant with respect to an associated object 
> identifier is that
> > which is given in the ATTRIBUTE, MATCHING-RULE, 
> OBJECT-CLASS and NAME-FORM
> > information objects. These information objects map into 
> subcomponents of
> > the AttributeTypeDescription, MatchingRuleDescription,
> > ObjectClassDescription,
> > and NameFormDescription ASN.1 types (respectively) with the 
> component
> > identifier "information". The components of the above ASN.1 types
> > corresponding to the NAME, DESC and OBSOLETE fields in the LDAP
> > representation are all outside the "information" component 
> (it just isn't
> > evident from the BNF).
> 
> The problem is that the OBSOLETE field does not have any text.  What
> have I missed?

I was speaking in a general sense that servers should not be required
to exactly duplicate the NAME, DESC and OBSOLETE fields as they appear
in the source definition.

> I'm concerned, too, about extending the 
> statement to the
> NAME field in the AttributeTypeDescription.  I don't think the server
> can change the name value arbitrarily because of the necessity for the
> client to use the name in order to know which attribute is present.

Removing the name isn't normally a prudent thing to do but it may be
necessary if a subschema has to contain two distinct definitions using
the same name.

Also, being able to put in additional localized names isn't a bad thing.

Regards,
Steven