Re: to CN or not to CommonName?

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> After looking through the LDAP RFCs, both V2 and V3, I find myself still
> unable to answer this:
> 
> Although RFC 2256 section 5.4 unambiguously states that "cn" is associated
> with the OID 2.5.4.3 "X.500 CommonName", and the language of RFC 2252
> section 4.2:
> 
>  >   Schema developers MUST NOT create attribute definitions whose names
>  >   conflict with attributes defined for use with LDAP in existing
>  >   standards-track RFCs.
> 
> bars the use of "cn" for anything but this, I cannot find a place that
> gives an opinion on whether the use of other names, like "commonName", for
> the same attribute should be:
> 
> - freely allowed and encouraged
> - allowed, but discouraged
> - disallowed
> 
> (my personal take: ought to be disallowed, or at least fiercely sworn at,
> for all newly constructed databases. But I'm enamored of uniformity....)

Perhaps a statement should be added to RFC 2252's successor?  For the
sake of interoperability, I agree that use of alternative names should
at least be strongly discouraged.

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