[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Grouping Attributes Together
For what its worth, I think changing from SET to SEQUENCE has value even if
it doesn't entirely solve the grouping problem. Over the years I've seen
many cases where clients have had to bend over backwards - or dream up new
attribute syntaxes, just because the values are not ordered. In many cases
the clients don't even care what the relative ordering is; just so long as
it is the same every time.
- David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chadwick [mailto:d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 November 1998 20:28
> To: Tim Howes; Erik Skovgaard
> Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: Grouping Attributes Together
>
>
> concerning attributes as SEQUENCE OF Values, Erik wrote
>
> >
> > David, what would it take to get this through the ITU and how long would
> > it take?
> >
>
> The ITU-T is as formalised as the IETF is becoming :-). The current
> work was started by the PTTs some while ago to solve their
> international directory enquiries problems using an enhanced
> X.500/LDAP protocol. The work is becoming reasonably stable and
> there is a document output from Beijing that will shortly be
> available for 3 month PDAM ballot. This document will be available
> on the Bull server for comment by national bodies AND BY THE
> IETF, who have liaison status. The plan is to hold a ballot
> resolution meeting about April time in Orlando. (Pity it could not
> have been December :-)
>
> Three possible approaches have been suggested,
> one based on contexts (though this is the least favoured and will
> probably be dropped), one on compound attributes and one on
> families of entries. No preference has been expressed for either of
> the latter two, which is why I am soliciting comments from the
> LDAP group. No other approaches such as SEQUENCE of
> attribute values has been suggested. The IETF is however quite
> able to supply a ballot comment suggesting this alternative
> approach if it thinks it is the best solution. I guess the IETF would
> defer to the LDAP group initially to suggest the best workable
> solution to the problem.
>
> What is absolutely certain is that the 2000 version of X.500 will
> have a solution to the related attributes problem contained within it.
> I would like to see is a solution that both the LDAP group and the
> X.500 group can both agree is a sensible, workable, solution
> meeting the needs of all the users. Hence this discussion.
>
> I am not sure that SEQUENCE of values is a solution to the
> problem for reasons stated earlier, but if the LDAP group as a
> whole does think so, then you should submit a fully worked out
> solution as a ballot comment to the next meeting in April.
>
> Hope this reply helps
>
> David
>
> ***************************************************
>
> 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
>
> ***************************************************
>
>