|
And this is one of my concerns about specifying any kind of
multiple attribute subtype inheritance via attribute type options. I imagine
that X.500 vendors may want to reuse whatever attribute subtyping mechanisms
they already have when implementing support for attribute type options. I also
just don't like stating that an attribute type options is a subtype and then
having a set of (unspecified) exceptions to that statement.
It would be preferable if 2251 stated that AttributeDescriptions with one or more options are *sometimes* treated as
subtypes of the attribute type without any options, and then go on to explain
whatever nuances we agree they have.
Jim
>>> "David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk> 10/21/00 3:04:00 PM >>> Date forwarded: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Date sent: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:10:31 -0700 To: d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> Subject: Re: RFC 2596 questions Copies to: <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com> Forwarded by: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com > At 07:58 PM 10/21/00 +0100, David Chadwick wrote: > >I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that multiple superclasses > >are supported (i.e. multiple inheritance) > > Of object classes, yes. > But we're talking about multiple inheritance of attribute types. > > Slight disconnect there !. I agree that multiple inheritance of attribute types is not supported by X.501 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 *************************************************** |