Russ, Thanks for that clarification. This is what I poorly was trying to communicate. Stefan Santesson Program Manager, Standards Liaison Windows Security > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: den 20 mars 2006 14:09 > To: Stefan Santesson; tls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to > Proposed Standard > > I need to add a point of information regarding "assisted" in the text > below. I insisted that the solution support multiple name forms and > that the solution include a backward compatible mechanism as new name > forms are registered. I did offer some guidance during AD Review to > ensure that these properties were included. > > Russ > > > At 01:35 PM 3/20/2006, Stefan Santesson wrote: > ><Stefan> We can't define a new user mapping type just to have one more. > >There has to be a use case with a need for one. The current hint can be > >used with a wide set of account names in practically any environment > >that use the principles of user@domain. > > > >But the extensibility is there in case a new need is there in the > >future. > >The security AD (Russ) has assisted in developing that part of the > >document. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf