Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #1397Re: DEFAULT attributes with OBJECT-CLASS macro in X.521
From: Markus Kuhn
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 14:37
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 14:37
51 lines
3064 bytes
3064 bytes
jpalme@dsv.SU.SE (Jacob Palme DSV) writes: >Question: Is it possible, with this representation, to represent >DEFAULT attributes, i.e. attributes which need not be included >in the object, but which always must have a value, and where >a default value, defined somewhere (where??) is used if the >are not explicitly stored in the object. >If not: How should the notation be extended to be able to >handle DEFAULTed attributes? Shall the values of these defauls be considered by DSAs, e.g. should they be transmitted in answers to querries and should the default values be considered in searches? This would be a major change in the current X.500 functionality, that could often break interoperability (which DSA knows about default values and which one does not?). If the values shall not be considered by DSAs, than the default values are something that need not at all be known to the whole X.500 system. Then default values are application specific. If one application considers the absence of a certain attribute as an indicator for a default value, than no other application of different type has to do this. E.g. if a group communication user agent interpretes the absence of an attribute notInterestedInCommercialJunkMail = Yes as nIICJM = No, than my standard person lookup user agent should not be forced to display the same interpretation, as the interpretation of the default value is application specific. If you extend the CLASS notation by a DEFAULT part, than you should take care in your notation, that it becomes obvious to which type of application this default value is relevant. If the classes you define are only subclasses relevant to your application, than there would be no problem, if the defaults are indicated in the CLASS macro notation. BTW: X.500(92) will allow you to use default attribute inheritance for subtrees. This is already common practice in some existing applications (e.g. QUIPU), but still has to be standardized. Attribute inheritance might in some situations be an alternative for DEFAULT values ... Just a few ideas ... Markus BTW: Is there a more recent version of the X.gc standard available online? The Microsoft RTF file that I have found is version 8 and perhaps already quite out of date. -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de | X.500 entry available --- Wer, wie, was? Wieso, weshalb, warum? Wer nichts fragt bleibt dumm. ---
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1ieqr4EINNlf0@uni-erlangen.de>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!uni-erlangen.de!not-for-mailReferences:
<229244*jpalme@su-kom.dsv.su.se>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!uni-erlangen.de!not-for-mail From: unrza3@cd4680fs.rrze.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: DEFAULT attributes with OBJECT-CLASS macro in X.521 Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:37:24 +0100 Organization: Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen Message-ID: <1ieqr4EINNlf0@uni-erlangen.de> References: <229244*jpalme@su-kom.dsv.su.se> Reply-To: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de NNTP-Posting-Host: cd4680fs.rrze.uni-erlangen.de Lines: 51