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

Re: object class 'alias'

To: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@dtasi.com>
Subject: Re: object class 'alias'
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:40:40 -0700
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Organization: OpenLDAP <http://www.openldap.org/>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990712000451.00919db0@pop.walltech.com>
Resent-date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"E0nE7B.A.AcC.zcbi3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
> You've misunderstood the spec.

I am just readying the LDAP RFCs.  The RFCs describe
the the 'top' of the chain as being 'ABSTRACT' and alias
as 'STRUCTURAL'.

RFC2256:
	( 2.5.6.0 NAME 'top' ABSTRACT MUST objectClass )
	( 2.5.6.1 NAME 'alias' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST aliasedObjectName )

Yet, RFC2252 implies that both 'top' and 'alias' are abstract:
	every entry will contain an abstract class ("top" or "alias")

'alias' cannot be both 'ABSTRACT' and 'STRUCTURAL.

Kurt

References:
- Re: object class 'alias'
  - From: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@dtasi.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (c.harding 30393) Re: Tw bobs worth on TOP, LDAP standards process and subschemasub entry attribute usage in rootDSE
Next by Date: Re: object class 'alias'
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread