Re: About aliases an X.500....

["David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@zetnet.co.uk>]

> Date:          Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:06:18 -0600
> From:          "Ed Reed" <ED_REED@novell.com>
> To:            Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, howes@netscape.com,
>                ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au
> Subject:       Re: About aliases an X.500....

> NDS implements aliases in such a way that the naming rule for the
> alias is _identical_ to the naming rule that applies to the
> referenced object.  For instance, it seems meaningless to us to
> allow an > I agree that aliases can be useful in constructing
> alternative namespace hierarchies for browsing or even searching. 
> But it makes my head hurt thinking too much about changing the
> object class types> Ed
> 

Ed 
Let me give you an example of where an alias may need to be of a 
different object class to the aliased entry, and that is an OU 
pointing to an O. As an example, you could have Lotus as an OU of 
IBM, pointing to Lotus as an O.
David

> -------------------
> Ed Reed, Technologist
> Group Technology Office
> Novell, Inc.
> +1 801 861 3320
> 
> >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no> 04/07/1998 01:13:39 >>>
> Alan,
> on a completely different topic:
> I've thought for a long time that using aliases is the only way
> one can sensibly use the distinguished name for uniqueness and for
> search scope limitation at the same time.
> 
> I think I have also got a fairly solid gut feeling for how it's being used
> (basically adding empty records of type "alias", with only the naming
> attribute; assuming that searches follow aliases encountered in a
> subtree traversal unless the appropriate control is invoked).
> 
> But I was trying to find supporting text for this picture in the X.500
> series when I came across this entry in X.501(93) 12.3.3:
> 
> >NOTE - The object class alias does not specify appropriate attribute types
> >for the RDN of an alias entry. Administrative Authorities may specify 
> >subclasses of the class alias which specify useful attribute types for RDNs
> >of alias entries.
> 
> Put this together with the fact that X.520 does not mention aliasing,
> and that naming rules don't seem to give either permission or restriction
> on the use of RDNs for aliases, and it seems to me that the standard and
> its usage is somewhat underspecified.
> 
> I see two possibilities:
> 
> - The industry has ignored naming rules where aliases are concerned, and
>   is buliding products that "allow anything".
> - The industry is shipping private schemas that specify rules for how one
>   can use aliases, but these are not standardized.
> 
> Obviously, software developed to the two paradigms above will not necessarily
> interoperate.
> 
> Can you help me understand this one?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>                          Harald T. Alvestrand
> 
> -- 
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no 
> 
> 
> 
> 
***************************************************
David Chadwick
IT Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 370 957 287
Email D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk
Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
***************************************************