Scope names allow ".", so you could compose a hierarchy. On the other
hand, there is no intrinsic support for hierarchy. It would be
a naming convention.
jak
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:46:07 -0600
>From: "Hugo Parra" <HPARRA at novell.com>
>To: <mike at easysw.com>, <Srvloc-discuss at lists.sourceforge.net>,
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, <James.Kempf at Sun.COM>
>Cc: <ipp at pwg.org>
>Subject: RE: IPP> FW: [Srvloc-discuss] [Multiple registrations for a single
print device]
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by heliopolis.eng.sun.com
id IAA18768
>>Ira wrote ...
>>> Why not copy the advertised SLP scope names (which are generally
>> geographic and/or organizational in realistic use cases) into
>> a concatenated single string (say with hyphens between) and use
>> that value for an 'ou=' (Organizational Unit) LDAP attribute,
>> to place the advertised service (e.g., a printer) into the
>> organizational subtree of the enterprise network (as opposed
>> to the user subtree, where the LDAP Printer aux class is useful)?
>>I might be showing my ignorance here, but I'd expect most 'ou' names to be
hierarchical (e.g., "ou=dev.provo.novell"). Can SLP scope names be hierarchical
as well (i.e., is there a character set aside to denotate hirerarchical levels)?
Notice that something like "scope=dev" would not be sufficient and
"scope=dev-provo-novell" might not provide a reliable mapping either as the
hyphen is commonly use in the naming of objects. Thus, does
"scope=bldg-h-provo-novell" translate into "ou=bldg-h.provo.novell" or
"ou=bldg.h.provo.novell"?
>>-Hugo
>