[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: More on DIT content rules

To: "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>
Subject: Re: More on DIT content rules
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:47:27 -0800
Cc: <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <sfa0c2a7.024@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
References: <sfa0c2a7.024@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>

At 06:49 AM 10/30/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>I don't doubt that as things progress, some implementations will auto-add certain DIT content rules to certain types of object classes when they are added.

I think some implementators take the view that their servers
have implicit DIT content rules which allow an entry to belong to any
auxiliary class but choose not to publish these rules in the subschema.
I think implementors taking this view should publish their rules
in the subschema so that clients will know which auxiliary classes
may be present in entries they update.

Kurt

References:
- Re: More on DIT content rules
  - From: "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>

Prev by Date: Re: More on DIT content rules
Next by Date: RE: More on DIT content rules
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread