Re: RFC2251: RootDSE subschemasubentry issue

[Andy Coulbeck <andy.coulbeck@INNOSOFT.COM>]

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> 
> >>> "David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk> 2/10/00 7:24:12 AM >>>
> 
> >So we really need placeholders for all of these.
> >It seems to me like the rootDSE should hold server specific
> >attributes, a subentry under the NC context prefix should hold NC
> >specific attributes (this is in line with the LDUP group I believe), and
> >a subentry under an Admin Point should hold Man Domain specific
> >attributes (this is in line with X.500(93)).
> >
> >What do you think?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >Or, an attribute which lists NCs and have subentries under the NCs,
> >so that no pointer is needed in the rootDSE.
> 
> This makes sense to me. The current model of listing the DN's of all known subschema subentries is confusing because of the "decoupled from NCs" problems already discussed. As long as a client can discover the NCs, it can discover the entire set of subschema subentries.
> 
> Jim

As Thomas Salter has already pointed out, the subschema subentry
associated with a given naming context can be found by reading the
naming context entry. The root DSE already contains the set of naming
contexts. Therefore the current model is not broken. Also, in the
current model, a server may have several naming contexts referring to
a single subschema subentry. This would not be possible if subschema
subentries were assumed to be under the naming context.