Michael Ströder wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Now - nameForms only specify a structuralObjectClass that they
control. It's
up to the DIT Structure Rule to define where in the DIT they take
effect.
But there is no reference from a DIT structure rule to the structural
object class. They are only associated via the name forms:
http://www.stroeder.com/img/LDAP_Schema_References.png
Correct.
If you have a schema with multiple nameForms defined, and you take your
interpretation that nameForms take effect in the absence of DIT
Structure
Rules, then you get the nonsensical case of multiple nameForms
applying to a
single entry.
Even if there is a governing structural rule for an entry there can be
more than one possible name form.
Irrelevant. There can only be one DIT Structure Rule for an entry, and
a DIT Structure Rule can only reference one nameForm. For any given
entry, only one nameForm may be in effect.
From X.501(1993) section 12.6.2:
If different sets of naming attributes are required for entries of a
given
structural object class, then a name form must be specified for each
distinct set of attributes to be used for naming.
Almost the same in X.501(2012) section 13.7.2.
And you (and others) agreed on that back in 2008:
Irrelevant. This references entries of a given structuralObjectClass
that exist in different parts of the DIT and thus governed by
different DIT Structure Rules.
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200807/msg00000.html
> That is already explicitly prohibited in the spec.
Any implementation not supporting more than one possible name form is
broken.
=> Your argument is not sufficient.
Nonsense.