Tom Miller (TMiller@shoretel.com)
Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:47:14 -0800
I have a few comments on this draft:
1. Has "VPIM" been registered as a prefix for attribute and class names so
that there's no conflict with other schema extensions. Among Directory
vendors, I know this can be done with both Novell and Microsoft. And, maybe
others. It's unlikely that they'll be a conflict but it seems like a good
idea to minimize the possibility.
2. Should VPIMUser be an auxilary class instead of a structural class? That
way, if the directory already has an object class for the user that is
indexed by the e164 number, then I can apply VPIMUser to that class. I'll
just have to manage one object in the directory instead of two. I'd like to
see the draft give this flexibility.
3. The draft still mentions an open issue for vPIMTextName--"OPEN ISSUE The
character set of this attribute is not yet determined". Shouldn't this be
resolved?
Thanks,
Tom Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Nov 17 2000 - 19:48:46 IST