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

Re: ActiveDirectory schema

To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Re: ActiveDirectory schema
From: Jim Sermersheim <JIMSE@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:00:07 -0600
Content-disposition: inline
Resent-date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"DuQmYB.A.VuD.CVTZ3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

>>> David Boreham <dboreham@netscape.com> 6/14/99 10:38:53 AM >>>

>Is the concern about entries moving between
>different vendors' servers ?

I think that's one concern.  If servers are sharing information, and there is an expectation that standard object classes remain static, surprises happen when one server extends a standard object class.  On the other hand, if a server uses aux classes to extend the attributes available to entries, the other server will notice the extra class in the objectClass attribute and examine its schema definition in order to discover the additional attributes.

Hmm, I probably just confused you even more.  Sorry.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ActiveDirectory schema
  - From: dboreham@netscape.com (David Boreham)
- Re: ActiveDirectory schema
  - From: Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaard@geotrain.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ActiveDirectory schema
Next by Date: Re: LDAP C API: Data Types and Legacy Implementations
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread