HI!
Given that RFC 5336 and RFC 5337 are out now the question arises whether
1. attribute type 'mail' defined in RFC 4524 should be revised to use LDAP syntax DirectoryString instead of IA5String with a new OID but the same NAME 'mail'
or
2. a new attribute type should be defined with a different NAME.
Personally I tend to 1.
Ciao, Michael.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
HI!
Given that RFC 5336 and RFC 5337 are out now the question arises whether
- attribute type 'mail' defined in RFC 4524 should be revised to use
LDAP syntax DirectoryString instead of IA5String with a new OID but the same NAME 'mail'
or
- a new attribute type should be defined with a different NAME.
Personally I tend to 1.
Attribute type descriptions are suppose to be, other than additional names and extensions, immutable. Changing 'mail' would surely lead to interop problems.
I think 2 is best. This also leaves 'mail' available for the alternative address. And this can all be introduced as Experimental, like RFC 5336/7 are.
-- Kurt
+1 on option 2.
Thanks, Peter
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
HI!
Given that RFC 5336 and RFC 5337 are out now the question arises whether
- attribute type 'mail' defined in RFC 4524 should be revised to use
LDAP syntax DirectoryString instead of IA5String with a new OID but the same NAME 'mail'
or
- a new attribute type should be defined with a different NAME.
Personally I tend to 1.
Attribute type descriptions are suppose to be, other than additional names and extensions, immutable. Changing 'mail' would surely lead to interop problems.
I think 2 is best. This also leaves 'mail' available for the alternative address. And this can all be introduced as Experimental, like RFC 5336/7 are.
-- Kurt
-
Kurt Zeilenga -
Michael Ströder -
Peter Buonora