RE: ActiveDirectory schema

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

While I agree it's a bad idea to redefine standard object classes, the X.500
standards explicitly allow the same effect through the use of content rules.
It is entirely possible for the effective definition of organizationalPerson
or top or any other class to be vary from one subschema administration area
to another.  So, clients that care about the list of permitted attributes
for a particular entry must examine the content rules in the appropriate
subschema object.


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Alan Lloyd [mailto:Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au]
 > Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 6:35 AM
 > To: 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com '; 'rweltman@netscape.com '
 > Subject: RE: ActiveDirectory schema
 > 
 > 
 > I saw this one some time a go..
 > IMHO its means that directory compatibility will be a major issue for
 > all servers and clients - world wide.
 > 
 > TOP is the hinge pin for all dierctory information objects in all
 > directory systems that are accessed by LDAP and DAP and DSP 
 > and LDUP and
 > LDIF...
 > 
 > We all have been working with that one OC as defined by the ITU/ISO -
 > being abstract for the purpose that other sub-classsed objects can be
 > defined and commonly inherit the OC attribute - which all 
 > other objects
 > must have..
 >  I dont understand why the standard OID (as registered from 
 > the ITU/ISO)
 > has been redefined in such a non standard way - Perhaps the ISO-ITU
 > should be asked for comment. 
 > 
 > So anything to do with structure rules and and object 
 > processing in all
 > clients, and servers must now be changed - if this definition is
 > supported. 
 > 
 > And for all those with LDAP clients as servers - the syntax 
 > and search
 > matching rules also have to be supported.
 > 
 > 
 > As this issue is important to anyone working on directory 
 > technology, is
 > there anyone from Microsoft on this list that would like to comment
 > about this re-definition of a formal joint iso-itu OID and 
 > its impact on
 > the rest of the worlds standard directory environment?
 > 
 > regards alan
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ----------
 > From: rweltman@netscape.com
 > To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
 > Sent: 6/13/99 6:32:47 AM
 > Subject: ActiveDirectory schema
 > 
 >   I was looking at the schema published in ActiveDirectory 
 > (Windows 2000
 > Beta 3) and was a little puzzled. It looks like the objectclass "top"
 > has been considerably extended: 
 > top 
 >         OID 
 >                 2.5.6.0 
 >         Required 
 >                 objectClass 
 >                 instanceType 
 >                 nTSecurityDescriptor 
 >                 objectCategory 
 >         Optional 
 >                 cn 
 >                 description 
 >                 distinguishedName 
 >                 whenCreated 
 >                 whenChanged 
 >                 subRefs 
 >                 displayName 
 >                 uSNCreated 
 >                 isDeleted 
 >                 dSASignature 
 >                 objectVersion 
 >                 repsTo 
 >                 repsFrom 
 >                 memberOf 
 >                 uSNChanged 
 >                 uSNLastObjRem 
 >                 showInAdvancedViewOnly 
 >                 adminDisplayName 
 >                 proxyAddresses 
 >                 adminDescription 
 >                 extensionName 
 >                 uSNDSALastObjRemoved 
 >                 displayNamePrintable 
 >                 directReports 
 >                 wWWHomePage 
 >                 USNIntersite 
 >                 name 
 >                 objectGUID 
 >                 replPropertyMetaData 
 >                 replUpToDateVector 
 >                 flags 
 >                 revision 
 >                 wbemPath 
 >                 fSMORoleOwner 
 >                 systemFlags 
 >                 siteObjectBL 
 >                 serverReferenceBL 
 >                 nonSecurityMemberBL 
 >                 queryPolicyBL 
 >                 wellKnownObjects 
 >                 isPrivilegeHolder 
 >                 partialAttributeSet 
 >                 managedObjects 
 >                 partialAttributeDeletionList 
 >                 url 
 >                 lastKnownParent 
 >                 bridgeheadServerListBL 
 >                 netbootSCPBL 
 >                 isCriticalSystemObject 
 >                 frsComputerReferenceBL 
 >                 fRSMemberReferenceBL 
 >                 uSNSource 
 >                 fromEntry 
 >                 allowedChildClasses 
 >                 allowedChildClassesEffective 
 >                 allowedAttributes 
 >                 allowedAttributesEffective 
 >                 possibleInferiors 
 >                 canonicalName 
 >                 proxiedObjectName 
 >                 sDRightsEffective 
 >                 dSCorePropagationData 
 >                 otherWellKnownObjects 
 >                 mS-DS-ConsistencyGuid 
 >                 mS-DS-ConsistencyChildCount 
 >                 createTimeStamp 
 >                 modifyTimeStamp 
 >                 subSchemaSubEntry 
 >   Some of the new attributes are operational. But is it 
 > really okay to
 > redefine "top"? 
 >   There is also a minor bug in that there is a missing space 
 > after the
 > left parenthesis for the MAY and MUST lists: 
 > objectClasses: ( 1.2.840.113556.1.5.74 NAME 
 > 'categoryRegistration' SUP
 > leaf S 
 >  TRUCTURAL MAY (localeID $ categoryId $ managedBy $ 
 > localizedDescription
 > ) ) 
 >   
 > Rob 
 >  
 > 
 >