Re: limits (Was: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt)

[Ryan Moats <rmoats@lemurnetworks.net>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:42:36AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 10:07 AM 2001-11-30, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >Because I've seen far too many cases where what was originally thought
| >to be "enough space" ran out.
| 
| But these aren't limits.  They don't cause us to "run out" of anything.

I think you are trying to have it both ways.  You are saying "anything
longer MAY be refused as being too long" and then saying "these aren't
limits".  They *are* a barrier to names (call it a guideline, call it
a limit, it doesn't matter).

| >While, I don't see how 48 characters
| >arises from the I-D guidelines, I'm willing to let other's in the WG
| >give their opinion (realizing that silence is assent).  However,
| >16 strikes me as too short.  If I look at DNS, a comparible limit there
| >is 32, so why not that?
| 
| In DNS, it is a LIMIT.  In this BCP, this is not a limit, it's
| a guideline.
| 
| >Given the history of DNS, I would then agree that
| >there would be "plenty of space".
| 
| Again, the statement doesn't reduce the amount of name space
| available.  It only suggests that folks use short names over
| long names.

That's a null semantic.  If you say "anything over X may be refused"
you are putting up a barrier, no matter how soft.  I want that 
barrier out where we won't have to come back and change it in the
forseeable future.  Why can't we do that?  What's so special of
16 over 32?

Ryan