[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: LDAPsubentry
The consequence of making it an abstract object class would be that the
different types of subentries each should have a structural object class
defined instead of an auxiliary object class (as we have it X.500). A naming
attribute would have to be defined for each of those. This naming attribute
could then be different for each type of subentry. What would the advantage be
of that? The type of subentry is clearly indicated in the objectClass
attribute.
As the same clients will access X.500 systems and LDAP servers, it must be an
advantage for implementers not to have unnecessary differences.
Hope that helps.
Erik Andersen
CEN/ISSS/WS-DIR Chairman
Mobile: +45 20 97 14 90
E-mail; era.als@get2net.dk
Internet: http://www.cenorm.be/isss/Workshop/DIR/Default.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Reed [SMTP:eer@OnCallDBA.COM]
Sent: 19. november 1999 05:13
To: osidirectory@az05.bull.com; ietf-ldup@imc.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com;
Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org
Subject: Re: LDAPsubentry
<< File: TEXT.htm >> Hmmm...I made it structural, because that's how the X.500
subentry
is defined...I can see doing it either way.
Any reaction from the X.500 community? Does it matter to you,
one way or the other? To be clear, the draft specifies ldapSubEntry
to be STRUCTURAL, and Kurt's proposal is to make it ABSTRACT,
instead.
Ed
=================
Ed Reed
Reed-Matthews, Inc.
+1 801 785 0315
http://www.OnCallDBA.COM
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> 11/18/99 10:42AM >>>
Forwarded to owning WG...
>To: Ed_Reed@Novell.com
>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
>Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>
>I would like to see LDAP subentry be an abstract object class
>to which is then subclassed as necessary to provide structure
>(including naming attributes).
>
>As defined, LDAP subentry requires cn. This may not be appropriate
>for LDAP subentries. I suggest:
>
>( ldapSubEntryOID NAME 'ldapSubEntry'
> DESC 'LDAP Subentry abstract class, version 1'
> SUP top ABSTRACT )
>
>( cnSubEntryOID NAME 'cnSubEntry'
> DESC 'CN LDAP Subentry class, version 1'
> SUP ldapSubEntry STRUCTURAL
> MUST ( cn ) )
>
>Your schema definition would then be split as appropriate between
>the abstract class and the structural class.
>
>Regards, Kurt
>
>
>