Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> I think a general statement is better than listing instances.
>
> While I certainly would prefer a general statement, I'm afraid
> that different statements might be needed for different instances.

Eh?  Then why did you too suggest a general statement further down?

>> Something like
>>
>> 4.3.26 (OID):
>>   Since a short name can refer to different OIDs in different
>>   contexts (e.g. there might be an object class 'x-fubar' and an
>>   attribute type 'x-fubar' in a subschema), a server SHOULD NOT
>>   allow short names in the OID syntax in contexts where it does
>>   not know which <numericoid> the short name represents.
>
> Doesn't this contradict [Models, 1.3]?

I guess so, but so does your suggestion.  Doesn't it say the same thing
(except that yours is shorter and better:-)?

> I'm thinking 4.3.26 of [Syntaxes] should say something like:
>
>         Servers SHOULD prevent values in <descr> form from be
>         stored in the directory for which the server is not
>         able to unambiguously determine which OID the <descr>
>         represents.
>
> and 5.1.17:
>         If the assertion value is presented in <descr> form and
>         the implementation is not able to determine which OID
>         the <descr> represents, the server SHOULD treat the
>         assertion as being Undefined.


> That is, if the server cannot determine which OID the <descr>
> refers to, the <descr> should be viewed as invalid.

Fine.

-- 
Hallvard