[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Attribute Name Length Bounds
I definitely agree that we have both of those problems to deal with when
considering what to do.
Hence my original statement of not really knowing
where it belongs either.
It is not my intent to open a "Pandora's box," but
I am leaning towards wanting something in an LDAPBIS
deliverable to cover this particular need because its
a general problem.
Maybe the other folks who seemed to be expressing a
similar leaning could speak up again now that we've had a bit more
discussion? I'm referring to Rick, Kathy, and Larry. What do you think
about where such
a requirement belongs?
>>> Mark C Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> 06/16/03 7:12 AM >>>
Chris Apple wrote:
> I maintain my view that this particular issue is of
> sufficiently general nature to justify consideration
> of adding a requirement to one or more standards track
> documents. Some of those could be from this group. That
> question I asked in a separate posting to the WG.
I will be honest and say that I am not sure where such a requirement
belongs. Lack of a minimum lower bound does make it difficult for anyone
to create and publish schema that may be used with all LDAP
implementations. That seems like a fairly general problem to me.
I also see Jim and Kurt's point about the problems that will arise if
the LDAPBis group descends down the path of specifying minimum lengths
for all of the LDAP protocol elements.