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

RE: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}

To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
Subject: RE: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:49:21 -0800
Cc: 'Jim Sermersheim' <JIMSE@novell.com>, ietf-ldup@imc.org, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <000801bf8d41$42668970$895508cb@rubidium.adacel.com.au>
References: <s8c823f4.090@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
Resent-date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:50:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <c4GeSB.A.IuF.e6Xz4@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 10:09 AM 3/14/00 +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
>For the record, I'm not much fussed whether we make the cn attribute
>mandatory or not, but if the definition of LDAPsubentry ends up being the
>same as X.500's subentry definition I would rather that we just copy
>the X.500 definition and OID.

LDAPsubentry is quite dissimiliar in definition to the X.500 subentry.
It doesn't allow have a subtree specifier.  Hence, the new OID.

References:
- RE: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
  - From: Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>

Prev by Date: RE: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
Next by Date: LDAPEXT draft agenda
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread