Subject: RE: Matching Rules for Constructed Syntaxes

From: Erik Andersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:31:17 +0200

Hi David and others,

I do not see why we should not include it in our first draft for the LDAP 
alignment works. David, hope to see you in Orlando. Your presence would be 
very useful.

Erik Andersen
Mobile: +45 20 97 14 90
E-mail;  [email-masked]
Internet: http://www.cenorm.be/isss/Workshop/DIR/Default.htm

-----Original Message-----
From:	David Chadwick [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 29, 2000 5:44 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Matching Rules for Constructed Syntaxes

Folks

I think there is considerable merit in what Steven is suggesting, and
I wonder how we can make it part of our X.500 work - maybe as
part of the LDAP alignment work? Or should it be a separate topic?

David

***************************************************

David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email [email-masked]
Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J

***************************************************

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT)

> alignment works. David, hope to see you in Orlando. Your presence would be 

Can someone from the X.500 community describe and/or offer a pointer to
the "LDAP alignment" activity?  I think everyone involved with LDAP is
pleased that this is happening, but especially in the context of the
ldapbis work, one of whose items will be (I think) clarifying LDAP's
dependencies on X.500, it does raise questions of who is aligning with
whom.

Thanks,

 - RL "Bob"