[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Active Directory question
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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".
Well, like I said, I'm not sure what the practical difference is.
> [Models] and [RFC 2251] are pretty close here. Both
> indicate that some options indicate descriptions which
> are subtypes and some don't.
I still don't see the RFC 2251 text which says so.
You are right that ;binary seems to be a counterexample, but that just
means RFC 2251 is inconsistent, not that the existence of ;binary
overrides the description of other options. Nor does it say that it is
;binary being a non-tagging option which is the reason it is different.
If you refer to something else with me taking the RFC 2251 sentence out
of context, I don't see it.
(BTW, I think I could make a case for foo;binary being a subtype of foo
but with various additional semantics, but I'm not sure if I want to go
there:-)
--
Hallvard