Re: WG Last Call on URP I-D

Yes, that is why I said that I originally thought a reference to the
type would include all subtypes for a delete.  But 2251 does not go
into detail on what it MEANS to be "treated as a "subtype of the
attribute type without any options".  RFC2596 is a standards track RFC
that does provide detail on treatment of attribute options, at least
for the specific case of language tags.

I don't think we want to be in a situation where we say "a delete of an
attribute type includes all subtypes unless the subtype begins with
'lang-' in which case the rules of 2596 apply".  We need to treat all
attribute options, including language tags, consistently (with possible
exceptions for tags like ;binary).

Is LDAPBIS going to reissue 2596?  How do we deal with the
inconsistency?

Rick Huber

: From [email protected] Wed Sep  5 10:30:28 2001
: Return-Path: <[email protected]>
: X-Sender: [email protected]
: To: [email protected] (Richard V Huber)
: From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
: Subject: Re: WG Last Call on URP I-D
: Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
: Mime-Version: 1.0
: 
: RFC2251:
:    An AttributeDescription with one or more options is treated as a
:    subtype of the attribute type without any options.
: 
: Of course, ;binary is a bit of an exception to this.  LDAPbis
: is working on clarifications.
: 
: Kurt