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

Re: Distinguished values

Jim Sermersheim writes:

> I suggest:
> - newrdn: the new RDN of the entry. If the operation moves the 
>   entry to a new superior without changing its RDN, the old RDN
>   is supplied for this parameter.
>   Attribute values of the new RDN not matching any attribue value
>   of the entry are added to the entry and an appropriate error is 
>   returned if this fails.


I just noticed something else about distinguished values:

> 4.7. Add Operation 
>    - attributes: the list of attributes that, along with those from the 
>      RDN, make up the content of the entry being added.

I never noticed that one need not include the distinguished values in
the attributes in the Add operation.  But given that, I suppose we
should state that one MAY include them in the attributes.  Or that one
MUST NOT do so, if a lot of us have misunderstood it very badly:-)

The rest of my reply is not very interesting since we agree about a
wording for Modify DN, but anyway,

>>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 3/16/04 6:38:36 AM
>>> - newrdn: the new RDN of the entry. If an attribute value in the 
>>> newrdn does not already exist in the entry (either as part of the 
>>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> old RDN or as a non-distinguished value), it is added. If it
>>  ^^^^^^^
>>> cannot be added, an appropriate error is returned. 
>>But the RDN - and thus the values it contains - is not part of the
>>entry. Besides, this wording implies that the values in the RDN must be
>>identical to the distinguished values, not merely equivalent. Maybe:
> I don't understand what you're asserting here. As I understand it, each
> AVA in the entry's RDN is made up of distinguished attribute values held
> in the entry. 

No, it is made up of values _matching_ those held in the entry, not of
the values _in_ the entry.  Copies, and maybe inexact ones.  The current
text indicates that a a distinguised value in the entry acts as a
reference into the RDN, or maybe the other way around (that the RDN
refers into the entry).

> Maybe your definition of "identical" means "the same copy", and you're
> asserting that the RDN may use equivalent copies of the distinguished
> values held in the entry.

Yes.  Also that the wording is unfortunate because it gives the
impression that the RDN is somehow part of the entry.  Not so.