[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Unique identifiers for LDAP attributes
Ron,
We have customers with 100+ locally defined attribute types in their
schemas so most of the attribute types would be flowing back and forth
as OIDs under the "middle course". This doesn't look substantially
different to me than deprecating the use of type names for all attribute
types, even the standard ones. If a significant number of attributes
are known only by OID then they might as well all be.
A creeping list of recognized attribute names sounds like more trouble
than if we just fixed the list of attribute names as they stand now.
Regards,
Steven
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramsay, Ron [mailto:Ron.Ramsay@ca.com]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000 14:43
> To: d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: RE: Unique identifiers for LDAP attributes
>
>
> David,
>
> I agree with the philosophy. However, there may be a middle
> course. Where
> the attribute has been standardised by appearing in an IETF
> standard, the
> name used in the standard could be considered standardised.
> For all other
> attributes, an OID is required. There may be other
> publication methods which
> can standardise attribute names, eg informational RFCs.
>
> Ron.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chadwick [mailto:d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000 0:03
> To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Unique identifiers for LDAP attributes
>
>
> Folks
>
> I was at a Middleware meeting a few weeks ago where some guys
> from Internet 2 were talking about outstanding problems with LDAP.
> One of the points raised was the lack of a unique name for attribute
> types, and that two LDAP servers could have the same name for
> different attributes or different names for the same attribute. They
> were wanting to create a group that could standardise on the
> names of LDAP attribute types. When I pointed out to them that we
> already have unique identifiers for each attribute type in the shape
> of OIDs, that do not have the multilingual and character set
> problems that strings have, they seemed convinced that this could
> work.
>
> However, we have the situation that some LDAP servers do not
> require OIDs to be defined for attribute types, and the LDAP spec
> deprecates the use of OIDs in protocol in preference to strings.
>
> Given that many LDAP clients now map the attribute type strings
> from protocol into a user friendly language dependent display string,
> the string representation in protocol has about had its day and
> served its purpose. Isnt it about time that we altered the LDAP
> spec to recommend that OIDs be the preferred way of transferring
> attribute types in protocol, and that the OIDs become the globally
> unique way of identifying attribute types.
>
> (Firewalls up to protect from flames)
>
> David
>
> ***************************************************
>
> David Chadwick
> IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
> Tel +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
> Mobile +44 790 167 0359
> Email D.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
> Home Page http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
> Understanding X.500 http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
> X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
> Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
>
> ***************************************************
>
>