Re: LDAP ISSUE

["David P. Kemp" <dpkemp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

That sounds like a presentation issue, and perhaps that's what
you meant to imply by emphasizing "on the wire".

Would it not be reasonable for new DN attribute keywords to
be registered with IANA, and permit newly developed clients
to translate between keywords (for human consumption)
and OIDs (on the wire)?

Dave




Steve Hanna wrote:
> 
> Actually, there is a good reason for the position of the LDAP
> group on this issue.
> 
> The reason that new keywords for attribute types in X.500 DNs
> cannot be sent on the wire in LDAP protocol messages is that
> old LDAP servers won't know what the new keywords mean. For
> user input and output, new keywords can be added. But you
> can't expect existing LDAP servers to automagically understand
> what a new keyword means when they see it on the wire. OIDs
> are the best way to handle this.
> 
> Also, this is not a new position. RFC 1779 (for LDAPv2)
> allowed new keywords and defined an IANA registry. But no
> new keywords were ever defined. I suspect that people
> realized the problems that would ensue. RFC 2253 (for LDAPv3)
> does not allow new keywords. And the revised version of 2253
> (draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-07.txt) also does not.
> 
> Steve