Re: DN-alt issues

[Scott Seligman <scott.seligman@sun.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> writes:
> 
> I do, however, believe some clarifications to the current
> I-D are needed.  In particular, the I-D should clearly state
> that the table is not extensible. 

I've seen all the old e-mail, I know it's been hashed to death, I
respect Kurt's opinions and don't expect to change his mind, but
RFC 2253 (section 2.3, second paragraph) clearly indicates that the
table *is* extensible.  The table in the RFC itself is described as 
"an example ... for a few of the attribute types", and the extension
mechanism is (vaguely) described as "a published table... associated
with LDAP [RFC 2252]".  Perhaps extensibility is a bad idea, and
perhaps the extensibility mechanism as spec'ed is inadequate (though
no more so than for syntaxes), but the spec says what it says.  It is
inappropriate to change this in a BIS update, where the goal is
clarifying an existing spec, not designing a better spec.


Scott