[Date Prev][Date Next]
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 <email@example.com> 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.