[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] URN namespace for ldap/X.509 schema elements?


descriptor-based URN would I use? Do you really think it would be a "best common practice" to promote the use of a URN space that defines multiple names for the same thing? 

Another valid point but equaliy valid for LDAP itself and we are able
to use LDAP anyway. In practice one of the aliases will be used, the
other less so.

The fact that with we live with this problem in LDAP certainly doesn't mean we would choose to recreate the problem in a new space. In fact it means that we learn from our mistake and choose not to recreate the problem in the new space.

Using urn:oid forces clients to be schema-aware which has good and bad
side-effects.

Choosing URNs based on the assumption that it's useful for clients simply to splat those URNs in front of users (which I assume is what you 

Absolutely not! My application does not involve users directly in any
way. Introducing oids is quite possible but requires a separate mapping
(i.e the schema) to be maintained.

Then I really don't understand what you mean by this point. If there are no users involved then what could be the difference between

  urn:oid:2.5.6.2

and

  urn:ietf:param:ldap-parameters:objectidentifierdescriptors:country

as they're both just strings that identify an attribute type? Why does one require some sort of mapping and the other not?

 - RL "Bob"


_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext