[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Active Directory question
- To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: Active Directory question
- From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 19:42:34 +0200
- Cc: Jim Sermersheim <jimse@novell.com>, ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
- In-reply-to: <6.0.1.1.0.20040420102949.04a38248@127.0.0.1>
- References: <s084ef11.032@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <HBF.20040420bp2v@bombur.uio.no> <6.0.1.1.0.20040420101716.04932358@127.0.0.1> <6.0.1.1.0.20040420102949.04a38248@127.0.0.1>
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> At 10:27 AM 4/20/2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>At 09:49 AM 4/20/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>Jim Sermersheim writes:
>>>>> _Can_ we recommend against unsolicited options? An attribute type with
>>>>> an option is a subtype of that attribute type without the option. A
>>>>> search requesting an attribute also requests subtypes.
>>>>
>>>> That's only true of tagging options (so far)
>>>
>>>Oh, good. Seems to have been fixed since rfc2251 section 4.1.5:
>>>
>>> An AttributeDescription with one or more options is treated as a
>>> subtype of the attribute type without any options.
>>>
>>>This should be listed in [Models] Appendix A.1: Changes to RFC 2251.
>
> I really don't see [Models] as changing the substance
> of what RFC 2251 said in regards to options and subtypes.
> [Models] just clarifies the sentence you quote as
> applying generally, but in all cases.
I don't understand. The RFC 2251 statement seems general enough, while
[Models] clearly says it is _not_ general, and _not_ applies to all
cases.
> RFC 2251 included
> the same substance, it just wasn't as clear (because
> some folks sometimes took "is treated as" as "is").
I'm not sure what the practical difference is between "is" and "is
treated as", but in any case, RFC 2251 makes no distinction between
tagging options and other options with regards to subtyping, while
[Models] does. I don't see how that can be no change.
--
Hallvard