RE: Comments: draft-mmeredith-rootdse-vendor-info-03.txt

["Skovgaard, Erik" <Erik.Skovgaard@icn.siemens.com>]

All,

Did anyone consider using an OID for the value of this attribute.  That
would remove any potential doubt about which form the vendor's name should
have (e.g. Siemens vs Siemens AG).

Cheers,                 ....Erik.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 16:24
To: mark_meredith@novell.com
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Comments: draft-mmeredith-rootdse-vendor-info-03.txt


Mark,

Here are some comments...

	Kurt


The abstract says: "MUST NOT be used for feature advertisement or
discovery" yet section 3.1 describes exactly this.  

4.1 vendorName
   This attribute contains a single string, which represents the name
   of the LDAP server implementer.

I suggest the specification allow the vendorName to contain any
string representing the name of the vendor.  In the world of
OEM'ed software, the name of the implementor may not be the
most appropriate name to place here.

4.2 vendorVersion

4.2 states "This string MUST be unique between two versions".
I assume it's up to the vendor to determine what constitutes
a version.

5. Notes to Server Implementors

I suggest, like HTTP vendor version strings, the I-D state that
server implementors may make the vendorName and vendorVersion
strings configuration items.  The reality is that clients will
abuse these values and servers need to support spoofing.

6. Notes to Client Developers

It should be noted that an anomalies often on affect subset
of implementations reporting the same version information.
Most implementations support multiple platforms, have numerous
configuration options, and often support plugins.

Lastly, I believe Informational would be a more suitable category
for this proposal.