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

["Volpers, Helmut" <helmut.volpers@icn.siemens.de>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 14. März 2000 00:49
> To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
> Cc: 'Jim Sermersheim'; ietf-ldup@imc.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: RE: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
> 
> 
> 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.

independant of the OID, what is the problem to define the LDAPsubentry
with the same semantics as an X.500 subentry ?
In our Implementation I can retrieve the X.500 subentries easily over LDAP,
if a ldapclient search for OCL=LDAPSubentry it is handled by the server
the same way as it is handled if the X.500 ServiceControl SUBENTRIES=TRUE.
So I can search for the X.500 subentries over LDAP.
>