Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
--On Friday, December 11, 2009 9:46 PM +0200 Ersin ER
<[email protected]> wrote:
IMO it's an error and should be rejected with the appropriate message.
It's also possible that the user intended to write nn (or any valid
similar attribute) instead of the second cn.
Yes, it is always difficult to discern user intent, another excellent
point.
Same corener case : what if we have an AT present in the MUST *and* in
the MAY ? Should it be considered an error ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
