--On Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:15 AM +0100 Emmanuel Lecharny
<[email protected]> wrote:
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 ?
Absolutely. Then it is even more important to know what they meant. Is it
required, or is it optional? That's a major distinction.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
