Re: OBSOLETE field (was: schema-08 notes)

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 06:43 PM 3/25/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 04:12 PM 3/25/2005, Andrew Sciberras wrote:
>>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>>schema-08 says:
>>>>>2.36  teletexTerminalIdentifier
>>>>>
>>>>>  The withdrawal of Rec. F.200 has resulted in the withdrawal of this
>>>>>  attribute.
>>>>
>>>>So, insert 'OBSOLETE' in the attribute definition below?
>>
>> No!  OBSOLETE means obsolete in the subtree, hence whether to
>> mark the element as OBSOLETE in the subschema should be left to
>> the administrator.  (IIRC, we've discussed this before.)
>
>Found it.  It was removed from the drafts after your message
><http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200012/msg00055.html>
>and discussed again in "Question on Your Comment" in Nov 2001 ending
>with <http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200111/msg00029.html>.
>That thread seems to have been lost after that, for I cannot find this
>information in the drafts.  It seems to belong in [Models] now, but that
>just says
>
>        [ SP "OBSOLETE" ]          ; not active
>    OBSOLETE indicates this <whatever> is not active;
>
>"not active in the subschema" would be more informative.

During AUTH48, I'll ask the RFC Editor to replace the section 4.1
text:
   The OBSOLETE field, if present, indicates the element is not active.
with:
   The OBSOLETE field, if present, indicates the element is not active
   in the subschema.  Only active definitions regulate the directory.

and in 4.1.X replace s/not active/not active in the subschema/.
This likely will require explicit AD approval.  Given this is
a minor clarification, that shouldn't be a problem.

More significant changes would likely be a problem as this
I-D is "IESG Approved".

Kurt