[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: LDAPsubentry

To: Ed Reed <eer@OnCallDBA.COM>
Subject: Re: LDAPsubentry
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <kurt@boolean.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:33:42 -0800
Cc: osidirectory@az05.bull.com, ietf-ldup@imc.org, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org
In-reply-to: <s8346bfb.056@mail.oncalldba.com>
Resent-date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"IcQDqB.A.QFE.yONN4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 09:13 PM 11/18/99 -0700, Ed Reed wrote:
>Hmmm...I made it structural, because that's how the X.500 subentry
>is defined...I can see doing it either way.
>
>Any reaction from the X.500 community?  Does it matter to you,
>one way or the other?  To be clear, the draft specifies ldapSubEntry
>to be STRUCTURAL, and Kurt's proposal is to make it ABSTRACT,
>instead.

I should note that my primary reason for desiring this change
is reuse.  I need such a beast but don't want to get stuck with
MUST cn.

Kurt

----
Kurt D. Zeilenga		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LDAPsubentry
  - From: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>

Prev by Date: AuthMeth and RFC2251
Next by Date: RE: LDAPDN and AuthMeth/DIGEST-MD5
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread