Re: Revising attribute type 'mail'?

+1 on option 2.

Thanks,
Peter

Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Michael Str=F6der wrote:
>
>> HI!
>>
>> Given that RFC 5336 and RFC 5337 are out now the question arises wheth=
er
>>
>> 1. attribute type 'mail' defined in RFC 4524 should be revised to use
>> LDAP syntax DirectoryString instead of IA5String with a new OID but th=
e
>> same NAME 'mail'
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. 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=20
> names and extensions, immutable.  Changing 'mail' would surely lead to=20
> interop problems.
>
> I think 2 is best.  This also leaves 'mail' available for the=20
> alternative address.  And this can all be introduced as Experimental,=20
> like RFC 5336/7 are.
>
> -- Kurt