Re: Significance of name forms.

Michael Ströder wrote: > Howard Chu wrote: >> Now - nameForms only specify a structuralObjectClass that they >> control. It's >> up to the DIT Structure Rule to define where in the DIT they take >> effect. > > But there is no reference from a DIT structure rule to the structural > object class. They are only associated via the name forms: > > http://www.stroeder.com/img/LDAP_Schema_References.png Correct. >> If you have a schema with multiple nameForms defined, and you take your >> interpretation that nameForms take effect in the absence of DIT >> Structure >> Rules, then you get the nonsensical case of multiple nameForms >> applying to a >> single entry. > > Even if there is a governing structural rule for an entry there can be > more than one possible name form. Irrelevant. There can only be one DIT Structure Rule for an entry, and a DIT Structure Rule can only reference one nameForm. For any given entry, only one nameForm may be in effect. > From X.501(1993) section 12.6.2: > > If different sets of naming attributes are required for entries of a > given > structural object class, then a name form must be specified for each > distinct set of attributes to be used for naming. > > Almost the same in X.501(2012) section 13.7.2. > > And you (and others) agreed on that back in 2008: Irrelevant. This references entries of a given structuralObjectClass that exist in different parts of the DIT and thus governed by different DIT Structure Rules. > http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200807/msg00000.html > > > That is already explicitly prohibited in the spec. > > Any implementation not supporting more than one possible name form is > broken. > > => Your argument is not sufficient. Nonsense.