Re: Q: LDAP C API: LDAPAPIFeatureInfo.ldapaif_name

[JR Heisey <jr.heisey@mediagate.com>]

Mark Smith wrote:
> 

> > ...
> > >However it occurs to me that for controls
> > >the string could be its OID such as "1.2.840.113556.1.4.473".
> > >Would this be appropriate?
> >
> > There are features which aren't controls or extended operations.
> 
> Right.  Also, I think developers who use the API will demand names
> anyway.  Humans just prefer names.  I realize there is more overhead in
> that name conflicts can occur while OID conflicts should not.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. The OID will likely be
defined
in a macro as would a stringized name. Perhaps someone
sniffing the
packets would like seeing English names (assuming they speak
English)
but someone used to watching packets probably would not be
too concerned
about looking for a specific OID value.

I can foresee a vendor providing an initial custom version
of
a feature and assigning a vendor specific OID. As an IETF
draft
for said feature becomes more mature the vendor would
migrate his/her
code to support the IETF feature and make it available via
the
RFC defined OID for the feature. Is scenario is too
simplistic?

> 
> --
> Mark Smith
> Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
> My words are my own, not my employer's.  Got LDAP?

-- 
-
J. R. Heisey