[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: ActiveDirectory schema - Structural versus Aux & NameBinding
Very true Andrew.. And that is why Aux OC should be used for
proprietary/product specific extensions
By the way all those who are involved with military, postal, retail,
transport, banking, library systems, PKI, etc, etc who have defined
standards with object classes for their directories and their
applications and their businesses, what version of TOP will be used and
what will it cost to rewrite all those standards and client
applications?
regards alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Probert
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 1:36 PM
> To: 'ietf-ldapext@netscape.com '; 'rweltman@netscape.com '
> Subject: RE: ActiveDirectory schema - Structural versus Aux &
> NameBinding
>
> A minor observation on this thread. Don't forget name binding rules.
>
> A structural object's position in the DIT hierarchy is enforced by
> name
> binding rules e.g. org is below country.
>
> Aux classes aren't subject to name binding rules, they are a way of
> extending an existing object.
>
>
> Andew Probert
> Rotek Consulting http://www.rotek.com.au
> a Division of Secure Network Solutions
> Tel +61 3 9690 8877
> Fax +61 3 9690 8171
>