Re: LDAP ISSUE

[Steve Hanna <Steve.Hanna@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, this is a presentation issue. OIDs work fine on the wire
(in the LDAP protocol). Keywords are only important when
users need to understand the DN. I agree with your suggestion
completely. Use OIDs on the wire for maximum compatibility
and simplicity in implementation. Clients can translate these
to and from user-friendly keywords, if they want.

-Steve

>
>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