Some LDAP implementations on the market today offer no support for DIT structure rules. A common workaround for this is the use of ACIs to enforce specific naming conventions for entries. While OpenDJ supports this technique just the same, there are potential caveats.
Use of ACIs to enforce such rules can be bypassed by users with sufficient access privileges. DIT structure rules, on the other hand, are defined in the schema, which conceptually exists at a lower and more fundamental level than ACIs. As such, no user can bypass a DIT structure rule using conventional means -- not even the root DN.
There is also the classic argument that use of ACIs to effect "behavioral changes" in this manner is contrary to the very intent of ACIs. Because DIT structure rules are essentially immutable and do not discriminate the origin of any request, they resemble configuration directives in practice more so than an expression of privilege.
The argument against ACIs in this context gains additional momentum when one considers the innate risk of altering ACIs for any reason, as even the slightest misstep can deny critical functionality or, worse, expose data.
