[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Active Directory question

At 10:42 AM 5/7/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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 likely meant "but not 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.

"treat as" doesn't necessarily mean "is a".

[Models] and [RFC 2251] are pretty close here.  Both
indicate that some options indicate descriptions which
are subtypes and some don't.


>> 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

But it does.  Consider the text regarding the ;binary option
in [RFC2251,2252,2256], cn;binary and userCertificate;binary are
clearly NOT a subtypes of cn and userCertificate respectively.

>, while [Models] does.  I don't see how that can be no change.

Because, I think, your taking one sentence out of context.

Kurt