Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-lang-00.txt

[Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>]

Tim,


 >From:  Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>
 >To:    Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
 >Subject: Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ldapext-lang-00.txt
 >Date:  Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:18:15 -0800

 >Steve Kille wrote:
 >
 >>  >> 1) Backwards compatibility with LDAPv3 clients that do not support
 >>  >> this specification.   In particular, what is the conformant action of
 >>  >> an LDAPv3 client getting back language information.
 >>  >
 >>  >Attributes with unknown tags should be treated as unknown
 >>  >attribute types. Just like if a client asked for the name attribute
 >>  >and got back cn, sn, givenName, and nickName, but did
 >>  >not know anything about the nickName attribute. If a client
 >>  >asks for cn and gets back cn and cn;lang-fr, it should just
 >>  >ignore it (or display it - the client's choice, obviously).
 >>
 >> My gut reaction is that this will cause interoperability problems for some
 >> LDAP clients.  I'd certainly be interested in the views of those that are
 >> implemented client side products (we are server focused).
 >
 >It may, yes, I agree. Just as attribute subtyping may cause
 >interoperability problems for some clients. My gut feel,
 >though, validated by my experience with clients I have seen
 >so far, is that the problems will be minor, and that this is
 >the best approach to achieve this important new functionality.
 >Do you have a suggestion for mitigating these potential
 >problems further? Should we add an explicit note to the
 >document about it?


I have no specific ideas.   I would have thought that
noting/describing this sort of extension in the core LDAP spec will be
important for the next update.

 >
 >
 >>  >> 2) X.500(97) also defines language tagging.  I think that there should
 >>  >> be information which ties this together.    Can LDAP language tags be
 >>  >> mapped onto X.500 tags in some/any circumstances.
 >>  >
 >>  >X.500 does this with contexts (my understanding). I'd be
 >>  >happy to see someone more familiar with X.500 define
 >>  >what this mapping should be.                         -- Tim
 >>
 >> I think that this would be useful.  I have not looked at the details.  If
 >> someone has, I think a short note to this list, with summary added to the
 >> text would be very very useful.
 >
 >If someone wants to turn Kevin's note, forwarded by David,
 >into a short section of the document, I think that would be
 >fine. Or, if it was going to be a lot of work, not done soon,
 >etc., we could publish a separate document.            -- Tim
 >

Yes, definitely.  I think that you should add a placeholder and
specifically push to get someone to do this.  I was also wondering if
any minor changes to align the specs might be helpful?



Steve