RE: Aggregate Attributes

[rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com]

Hi -

> Message-ID: <10C8636AE359D4119118009027AE99870DA5DADE@FMSMSX34>
> From: "Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>
> To: "'rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com'" <rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com>,
>         sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Aggregate Attributes
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:54:22 -0700
..
> I'm not sure I follow why you can't reconcile these two. 4.1.27 says
> non-divisible grouping, 4.1.28 says you can compose larger constructs out of
> them. It says nothing about dividing up their attributes. Where's the
> conflict?
> 
> C={a,b}
> D={C,e}={a,b,e}
..

If C is non-divisible, that would imply (to me at least) that
one would no longer be able to meaningfully access just a or b.
Likewise, if D is non-divisible, one would not be able to
meaningfully access the grouping C without also accessing e.
This is seriously at odds with the concept of attribute groups
as introduced in X.720 oh-so-many years ago.  We need to be
careful to not confuse structured types with attribute groups.
They are different concepts.  They are both useful, but they
are not the same thing.

I agree with Joel that, at the very least, these definitions
need to be cleaned up and made internally consistent, if not
reconciled with established practice.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------