Follow-up on Naming of Subentries

Greetings to all,
 
Although I'm not able to make the SLC meeting this week, I do have some
comments to report back as a follow-up to the discussion we had in London.
At the close of the meeting, there were two subentry naming issues
outstanding that I was to take to the next X.500 meeting -- subordination of
subentries and use of subentry naming attributes other than cn.  
 
We discussed these topics at the X.500 meeting last month.  The consensus of
the group was that although we're not necessarily opposed to either of these
changes, we need to better understand the requirements, and we want to make
sure that by making the changes, we're not creating unintended additional
semantics. 
 
Bottom line -- we're open to making these changes as long as we understand
the requirements and we can make them in a way that avoids negative side
effects.  Our next meeting is in late February / early March (prior to IETF
53), so if we can get an articulation of the requirements before then, we
should be able to have a clear direction by the Minneapolis meeting.
 
Regards,
 
 -- Skip Slone