Re: (ITS#6435) Hidden schema elements

[Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]

On Dec 21, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Michael Str=F6der wrote:

> Kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
>> Yes, it has long been our practice not to publish schema elements =
which =3D
>> are not yet well standardized.  This would include any element which =
=3D
>> carries a OpenLDAP.666 OID.
>>=20
>> The idea being that use of such attributes should be limited to early =
=3D
>> adopters and such.
>=20
> Sorry, but this practice is inconsequent.

That's your opinion.   My opinion is that we should avoid publishing =
''works in progress'' in production systems.  Works in progress, by =
their very nature, are subject to change without notice.

> The attributes are returned in LDAP
> responses

Generally because the client asked for more than it should have.   =
Clients really shouldn't generally be asking for * and/or +.
The two exceptions are clients which are servers attempting to =
server-to-server replication and clients operated by directory =
administrators.
Clients which are intended to support various user applications really =
should ask only for what they designed to consume.

> and therefore a client should be able to look up the attribute type
> description in the schema e.g. to determine the syntax.

I disagree. Schema may not be made available to the client for any =
number of reasons.  The X.500 and LDAP specifications allow for this.

>=20
> Some of the OIDs are now with .666 for years. Each time this topic is =
raised
> nothing happens...

That's because (in general) the ''works in progress'' have not be =
finalized.  If something hasn't changed in years, then maybe it's time =
to finalize it and, in doing so, assign it final OID.

-- Kurt=