RE: About aliases an X.500....

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>]

Thanks Alan - the point about search scope goes like:

- have an organization where the namespace is divided first
  by locality, then by OU, with 5 out of 30 locations having
  parts of the "sales" OU, and all locations operate 1 DSA
- for some reason, want to limit a search to the Sales OU, and
  not touch the 25 irrelevant DSAs
- Solution: have an alias tree called "Sales" under the O level,
  with 5 locality-names pointing to the 5 relevant sales OUs.

(in parenthesis - this is a case where Ed's "only the same class"
restriction has trouble, unless one uses OUs for localities...or I
might have misunderstood Ed).

(paren 2: this illustrates the interoperability problem - if one DSA
allows "alias named anything pointing to anything", and another DSA
disallows the
"alias named with L pointing to an object named with OU", the DIT
structure is forced by what product you buy, not by what you want....)

(CIP advocates will claim that the same thing can be accomplished
without preconfiguration by noting that the index objects for the
DSAs shows that only 5 of the 15 DSAs have entries with OU=sales.
But CIP is not at the moment deployed technology in either X.500 or LDAP)

                      Harald A

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no