RE: WG last call on "duplicate entries"

[Dave Watts <DJW@dataconnection.com>]

Kurt,

I'm not sure I agree here.

In your example, duplicating 'name' and an entry ...
        cn: Johann Smith
        cn: John Smith
        sn: Smith

... I'd treat values of 'cn' and 'sn' as if they were all values of the same
att 'name', and thus expect 3 entries to be returned:

  one with
        cn: Johann Smith

  one with
        cn: John Smith

  and one with
        sn: Smith

I think this aligns better with how values would be sorted (although RFC2891
doesn't explicitly talk about subtyping at all).

Whatever, it must mean that it's worthwhile adding a new example section 5.4
to the RFC to illustrate unambiguously how to treat subtypes.

Cheers,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
Sent: 27 March 2001 10:50
To: Dave Watts
Cc: 'jimse@novell.com'; 'roland@catalogix.se'; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: RE: WG last call on "duplicate entries"


At 09:48 AM 3/27/01 +0100, Dave Watts wrote:
>Kurt, Jim,
>
>"Both" is a fine answer, but I'm not sure Kurt's suggested minor editorial
>change clarifies things explicitly enough. We could add something like the
>following to 4.1.1 (or made into a 4th example in section 5).
>
>...
>
>For the purposes of determining multi-valuedness, values of subtypes are
>treated as if they were values of the supplied attribute.  eg 'cn;lang-en'
>is a subtype of 'cn' is a subtype of 'name', so an entry with
>  cn: Johann
>  cn;lang-en: John
>is considered to have two values of 'name'.

That's not how I believe it should be viewed.

If you dupliate 'name' and you have:
        cn: Johann Smith
        cn: John Smith
        sn: Smith

You should get back two entries, one with
        cn: Johann Smith
        sn: Smith

and one with
        cn: John Smith
        sn: Smith

that is, requesting duplication of 'name' implies requesting
duplication of 'name' and its subtypes.