RFC Errata
RFC 4519, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Schema for User Applications", June 2006
Source of RFC: ldapbis (app)
Errata ID: 6974
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jesse Coretta
Date Reported: 2022-05-17
Section 3.13 says:
3.13. 'residentialPerson' The 'residentialPerson' object class is the basis of an entry that includes a person's residence in the representation of the person. (Source: X.521 [X.521]) ( 2.5.6.10 NAME 'residentialPerson' SUP person STRUCTURAL MUST l MAY ( businessCategory $ x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $ telephoneNumber $ internationalISDNNumber $ facsimileTelephoneNumber $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st $ l ) )
It should say:
3.13. 'residentialPerson' The 'residentialPerson' object class is the basis of an entry that includes a person's residence in the representation of the person. (Source: X.521 [X.521]) ( 2.5.6.10 NAME 'residentialPerson' SUP person STRUCTURAL MUST l MAY ( businessCategory $ x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $ telephoneNumber $ internationalISDNNumber $ facsimileTelephoneNumber $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st ) )
Notes:
The "l" attributeType (a.k.a "localityName", as defined in section 2.16 of this same document) is defined in this class in ambiguous fashion. "l" is declared as both required (MUST) and permitted (MAY). It should be removed from the MAY clause.
It is also worth pointing out this flaw is limited solely to this RFC, as the original residentialPerson definition defined within the ITU-T X.521 document (section 6.10) is indeed correct. The "localityName" attribute type is not listed in ambiguous fashion.