Re: ldapbis WG Last Call on ldapbis-syntaxes, ldapbis-strprep

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> In view of this, I'm beginning to dislike that Prohibit step.
>> If I have a purely local LDAP directory, why shouldn't I be allowed to
>> give an attribute two values where one uses a Private Use code point?
> 
> These rules are designed for interoperability between independently
> developed implementations which you are likely to have even in
> local environments.  (...)

We have at least two LDAP servers here (OpenLDAP and AD), but will never
need any interoperability between them.

Interoperability is important, but I think the price is too high
sometimes.  Like in this case.  I don't like to have to pay too much for
features I know I won't need.  That's why I think the prohibit step
should only be a SHOULD or RECOMMENDED, with a 'MAY allow admins to turn
it off'.

> Note that one is always free to define other schema elements to meet
> local needs.

That only helps if I can hack the server to add new matching rules, or
if I'm satisfied with using Octet String for string data and don't need
features like case-ignore matching.

-- 
Hallvard