[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
- To: Sukanta Ganguly <SGANGULY@novell.com>
- Subject: Re: LDAP subentry, discussion on CN {MUST or MAY}
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:38:27 -0800
- Cc: Ed Reed <eer@OnCallDBA.COM>, jayhawk@att.com, kurt@boolean.net, eskovgaard@geotrain.com, era.als@get2net.dk, ietf-ldup@imc.org, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, mcs@netscape.com
- In-reply-to: <s8c7d22b.050@prv-mail25.provo.novell.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:38:48 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <hmLDNC.A.Er.9XDy4@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
At 04:29 PM 3/9/00 -0700, Sukanta Ganguly wrote:
>What is the reason behind the need to have a structural
>Object class for RootDSE ?
The RootDSE, like any other entry, needs structure (per
the X.500 model). Per previous discussions (see archives),
a structural object class was going to be defined (by Mark
Wahl) for LDAPv3 revised specifications.
Kurt