[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Tw bobs worth on TOP, LDAP standards process and subschemasub entry attribute usage in rootDSE
> I request that it is put to a *VOTE*, that the TOP used in LDAP conforms to
> the ISO/ITU definition of TOP.
I don't think we have a situation that requires a vote. Proposed Standard RFC
2256 states the definition of top as:
( 2.5.6.0 NAME 'top' ABSTRACT MUST objectClass )
and
LDAP servers MUST recognize the object classes "top" and "subschema".
This definition looks like ITU-T Rec X.501 (1993 E) Appendix B by design. In
fact the title of the document includes "X.500" in it, and in section 2:
This document provides an overview of the attribute types and object
classes defined by the ISO and ITU-T committees in the X.500
documents, in particular those intended for use by directory clients.
If an implementation gets this wrong, that implementation has a bug.
No one implementor manages the OID 2.5.6.0, therefore its implementation would
be in conflict with the OID assigner's intent. No implementation redefines or
changes a standard by its bugs, because in the IETF a specification is used as
the standard, not a reference implmentation.
As the document editor for 2256 I have not heard a groundswell of requests to
modify 2256 to make top anything else. I do not receive emails that say
'please add the attribute foo to top'. I have however heard many requests for
more information about operational attributes and advanced subschema
techniques, such as content and structure rules, to be made available through
the IETF, so that implementors can find out about them without needing to
read X.501. I encourage the X.500 experts to write and publish glosses of
X.500 series documents to let people know about these elements. I also
strongly encourage implementors to use appropriate techniques, such as
operational attributes, to provide their implementor-specific information model
extensions.
Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.