Re: New Version for draft-cal-resource-schema-03

Hi Andrew,
   Thanks a lot for your corrections and comments. I agree that all the ones you mention need to be corrected. I
will discuss them with my co-authors and submit a new draft with the corrections.

Thanks again,
Ciny

On Nov 30, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Andrew Sciberras wrote:

> Hi Ciny
> 
> I have some observations... The only technical error in the ID is a
> syntax/matching rule described immediately below. The rest of my
> observations are simply my opinion, which I believe will facilitate
> interoperability and remove ambiguity.
> 
> 5.14.1 and 5.23.4.1
> Each of these LDAP attribute definitions use a DistinguishedName
> (1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12) syntax and a caseIgnoreIA5Match
> Equality matching rule. This is not a legal combination of syntax and
> matching rule. A distinguishedNameMatch matching rule would be more
> appropriate for the DistinguishedName syntax.
> 
> 
> 5.7 Categories
> I think it may be ambiguous as to whether the category values are all
> stored as a single attribute value (e.g. "Rooms,
> EngineeringResources") or as separate values of the attribute (e.g.
> "Rooms" and "EngineeringResources").
>