Re: object class 'alias'

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 08:21 14.07.99 -0700, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 05:35 PM 7/13/99 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >At 07:33 12.07.99 -0500, Mark Wahl wrote:
> >
> >>My mistake in 2252: alias is not abstract.  Thanks for finding this , Kurt.
> >>In the next release section 4.4 will read
> >>
> >>    In general every entry will contain an abstract class ("top"),
> >>    at least one structural object class, and zero or more auxiliary
> >>    object classes.
> >
> >Does this mean that all objects of type "alias" are also of type "top"?
>
> Yes, rfc2256:
>         ( 2.5.6.1 NAME 'alias' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST aliasedObjectName )

Formally, I think alias should have been abstract.
With no attributes, you can't name it (having a DN for an RDN seems a bit
....perverted?)

In reality, I've suspected that people treat it like the "anything
goes" class, adding naming attributes as needed.
Can some current users of alias disabuse me of this notion, please?

                             Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no