[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Attribute Name Length Bounds
Mark C Smith wrote, On 06/13/03 08:26:
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
As far as I know, neither [Models] nor [Protocol] limits the lenght of
attribute names. Any limitiation in a specific implementation is imposed
by that implementation, not by the spec, so I'm not sure we can do
anything about it here.
Obviously no server allows an unlimited length, as they are all
limiited if by nothing more than available memory. I'm not sure if this
fits into an implementation report. It seems more appropriate for a
certification/branding program. Other than that, it seems like a valid
defect to raise with those implementors who restrict to unreasonable
limits.
I agree. I tried to come up with text that we could add to [Models] or
[Protocols] that would encourage implementors to not impose arbitrary,
short limits... but I am not sure how to word such a requirement so it
is meaningful. This is an interesting interoperability problem though.
-Mark
Perhaps reference to "3.3. Object Identifier Descriptors" of RFC 3383
"IANA Considerations for LDAP" would be helpful. It says,
"While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon
descriptors, they should be short. Descriptors longer than 48
characters may be viewed as too long to register."
There was obviously consensus in this WG regarding that length and
that language.
--
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz | |
# lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, |
# | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! |
# | I've got a gnu attitude! |
# voice (317) 226-7060 | |
# FAX (317) 226-6378 | |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|