[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: object class 'alias'
The purpose of Alias is to build an alternate DIT view of the same objects
I may have an object tree
Organisation Object
Org=IT (Naming attribute)
Person Object
DN=Me
Role=Consultant
Locality=VIC
To get a different view, I would add the following
Locality Object
Locality=VIC
Aliased Object
DN=Me
AlisedObjectName = Org=IT;DN=Me
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 9:28 AM
> To: Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Cc: Mark Wahl; Bruce Greenblatt; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: object class 'alias'
>
> 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