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

Re: [Fwd: sUffixAlias]

> At 08:04 PM 12/5/00 +0100, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> >let's say, change the bottom part of it only, the least significant
> from the user's
> >standpoint but the most significant from the server's standpoint,
> maybe.
> The whole value is provided by the user.  The server is obligated
> not to muck with it.

OK, I think I got it.

> A virtual view, or maybe more appropriately named a virtual naming
> context would be values provided to it by a virtual user which
> would derive values from another naming context.  Hence, the
> X.500 "user" attribute value model would be maintained.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so please correct me if I'm
RFC 2251 states that

    "The largest collection of entries, starting at an entry that is
    mastered by a particular server, and including all its subordinates
    and their subordinates, down to the entries which are mastered by
    different servers, is termed a naming context."

so a virtual naming context could be envisaged as a "rewriting" of
users/entries as belonging to a different, supposedly virtual, naming
which is provided values by one or more actual naming contexts.
So the distinguished name of the users is rewitten to reflect the fact
they are accessed through a virtual view, but their data is not.

In any case, my question is: do you think this feature, of course
and extended in order to exploit all its implications, may be