Re: ActiveDirectory schema

[Ed Reed <Ed_Reed@novell.com>]

Yes, so we must all be careful about pooh-poohing each other's extensions and
liberal interpretations...those of us who have extended TOP may have some
cleaning up to do, but it's more a matter of "what's done", isn't it?

Like, those who have implemented LDAP with out any adherance to the
possibility that naming rules should allow the administrator to govern the
allowable shape of their namespace...meaning applications think they
may name anything anthing they want in their DN...though such 
practice inhibits those applications use with other directories who
DO allow the imposition of naming rule constraints...

Bottom line is, if the standards were complete and had no need for
interpretation we'd all be bored already...

Ed

=================
Ed Reed, Technologist
Novell Product Management
+1 801 222 3944 (new number!)

>>> David Boreham <dboreham@netscape.com> 06/12/1999 20:43:44 >>>


"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

>No, but Netscape DS does:
> objectclass top optional aci

Ouch ! Rob walked straight into that one !

Mind you, surely one aci attribute (for which there's
a fairly good reason to add to "top") is less of
a crime than a whole page of random attributes ?




BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Ed Reed
TEL;WORK:801-861-3320
ORG:__CREATE_RECORD__;Product Management
TEL;PREF;FAX:TBD
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:ED REED@novell.com
N:Reed;Ed
TITLE:Architect
X-GWUSERID:ED REED
END:VCARD