Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-rfc2253-02.txt

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>I think the short name "SHOULD" be used,
> 
> It is.  Section 2: "This section defines the RECOMMENDED algorithm..."

Oh, good.

>> and MUST be used only if it is in the table in 2.3 in RFC2253.
> 
> Section 3 mandates that implementations recognize names in
> the table.  Is there a need to mandate their use?

No.  I wrote that because thought there was an implicit MUST already,
and wanted to restrict it a little.

> Considering that some implementations took the table as being
> "an example" and as DC is not in [4], there actually be implementations
> generating "0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25=foo,0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25=com"
> (or the equivalent using the #ber-hex notation).  Are these
> implementations to be outlawed?

No.  Never mind, it's fine as it is.

-- 
Hallvard