[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Attribute Name Length Bounds
I'm in favor of the clarification about what schema designers should do.
I also like Larry's broader language for the types of names to which this
lower bound applies.
Chris Apple - Principal Architect
DSI Consulting, Inc.
mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net
http://www.dsi-consulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org] On Behalf Of Richard V Huber
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 1:25 PM
To: capple@dsi-consulting.net; ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org;
lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov
Subject: RE: Attribute Name Length Bounds
In line with Larry Bartz' email mentioning RFC3383, how about:
To promote interoperability, server implementors SHOULD allow at
least 48 characters for attribute names and schema designers SHOULD
use attribute names which are no longer than 48 characters.
If we allow 48 character names to be registered, the standard ought to
support them.
I don't see much use for an upper bound. People who are worried about
interoperability always have to live within the lower bound in any case.
Rick Huber
: From owner-ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org Fri Jun 13 11:53:42 2003
: Return-Path: <owner-ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>
: From: "Chris Apple" <capple@dsi-consulting.net>
: To: "'Larry S. Bartz'" <lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov>,
: <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>
: Subject: RE: Attribute Name Length Bounds
: Sender: owner-ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org
: Precedence: bulk
: Comment: ietf-ldapbis mailing list <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/>
: List-Archive: <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/>
: List-Help: <mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=help>
: List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=unsubscribe>
:
: I was thinking more along the lines of a minimum bound in one of the
: LDAPv3 Draft Standard documents.
:
: How about this for a requirement?
:
: "Implementations MUST support attribute names that are at least 32
: characters in length."
:
: It seems like a simple one without a lot of baggage to me. But if anyone
: thinks there's a good reason not to include it, I'd like to know what
: that is.
:
: I have no strong opinions on an upper bound.
:
: I do realize that there is a work-around for this problem in most cases.
: You can create a shorter attribute name and then use the intended
attribute
: name as an alias. But this gets to be a bit complicated when rolling out
: services that use schema designed with longer attribute names.
:
: You have to perform testing to see what each implementation in question
: supports and then create aliases matching up with the shortest supported
: attribute name length.
:
: As a service implementer, that's an awfully expensive interoperability
: hoop to have to jump through if I'm using a technology that is soon to
: be based on a Draft Standard.
:
: I realize that someone might also want a larger attribute name length
: but there seems to already be some restriction with respect to what may be
: allowable from an IANA registration perspective. I'm not questioning that
: because 48 characters for an upper bound seems reasonable to me.
:
: Chris Apple - Principal Architect
:
: DSI Consulting, Inc.
:
: mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net
:
: http://www.dsi-consulting.com
:
: -----Original Message-----
: From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
: [mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org] On Behalf Of Larry S. Bartz
: Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 10:48 AM
: To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
: Subject: 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 | |
: #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
:
:
: