Re: DN->DNS mapping in draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-05.txt

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>]

David:

> Can you give us more details about how this migration path is supposed
> to work. And also why creating low down dc branches is more beneficial
> than creating dc branches from the root. I would like to understand
> how and why they want this change in the locate ID to be made, and if
> there is a sensible technical reason for choosing the method they are
> proposing, rather than one that conforms to the existing locate ID.

Well ... because with an already-deployed directory it's (perceived as)
easier to change names of lower nodes rather than top ones.

But I have to think that the burden of proof goes the other way.  What is
the "sensible technical reason" for having the mapping the way it is in
-05?  Why is a mapping that imposes more limitations on naming better than
one that permits more options, however unsightly they may seem to some?
So far there has been a lot of hand-wringing but not a single substantive
reason that I can see.

 - RL "Bob"