RE: Schema evolution

[Alexis Bor <alexis.bor@directoryworks.com>]

I don't think that you want to start adding additional optional attributes
to well known object classes.  Even as a formal evolution to an object
class, it will cause confusion and potentially break existing systems.  I
think that you are better off with an auxiliary object class, as far as a
local decision to extend.

But you do raise a good question, what would be the process and issues to
adding an attribute to an already well known and used object class, such as
organizationalUnit.  I think that there would be some very severe concern
over doing this and potentially lots of heated debate.

-- Alexis

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashish Kolli [mailto:akolli@us.oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 12:01 PM
To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Schema evolution


Hi,

As LDAP centric applications evolve, there will definitely be a need to
support slight changes in the schema.
One well known way to do it is to create auxiliary object classes and add
them onto existing entries in the DIT. Another way to do it is to provide
limited support of extending the existing schema in the directory (like
adding additional optional attributes to an objectclass). Is the latter
method a "well-accepted" way of supporting schema evolution?


regards,

Ashish Kolli
OiD Group