Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard

Bruce Greenblatt <bruceg@innetix.com> Wed, 14 January 1998 07:11 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:11:35 -0500
Return-Path: bruceg@innetix.com
Received: from ns.cnri.reston.va.us (cnri [132.151.1.1]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id CAA22267 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:11:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ns.cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id CAA09350 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:14:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.innetix.com (mail.innetix.com [209.172.64.12]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id CAA22264 for <iesg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:11:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from preinstalledcom (user64.sj.dialup.innetix.com [209.172.68.127]) by mail.innetix.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06414; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980113231000.0083c640@innetix.com>
X-Sender: bruceg@innetix.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:10:00 -0800
To: agrim@qsun.att.com, ietf-ids@umich.edu
From: Bruce Greenblatt <bruceg@innetix.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard
Cc: iesg@ns.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9801131758.AA05715@hoccson.ho.att.com>
References: <Message from Bruce Greenblatt <bruceg@innetix.com> <3.0.2.32.19980111174601.00840b40@innetix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:53 PM 1/13/98 -0500, Al Grimstad wrote:
[snip]
>
>This is really quite hopeless. Why don't you admit that your agenda is
>to force fit anything whatsoever into a rigid set of naming
>attributes, namely cn, ou, o, l and c? Would it be "evil" for a naming
>attribute to have meaning? 
>
>-- al

Al,

You really don't get it.  I want people to be able to use whatever naming
attributes they want, and that there isn't much need at all for your naming
plan.  Some people will use dc naming, and I think that is a good thing.
For other people, dc naming makes no sense at all.  An excellent example of
this was given by Alexis Bor.  I also don't want a naming plan that doesn't
coexist well with other naming plans.
================================================
Bruce Greenblatt              bruceg@innetix.com
http://www.innetix.com/~bruceg
================================================