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:
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.