|
Whatever the discovery mech is, I'd rather we have it and be
rarely used than not have it at all. Also, some things (like attr type options)
need more than just an OID in a list. We need to specify where they can be used
(which attrs or syntaxes support them).
Jim
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 9/15/00 2:01:22 PM >>> At 07:18 AM 9/15/00 -0400, hahnt@us.ibm.com wrote: >Should we investigate some additional rootDSE attribute to indicate the set of attribute descriptions that are supported? Further, when a new attribute description is defined, should we be assigning OIDs and keeping these as an additional part of the subschemasubentry data? I wouldn't mind too much having one attribute type "supportedFeatures" of syntax OID which listed "supported" features. This could include MAYs and SHOULDs from the "core" specification as well as any MAY, SHOULD, MUST of any extension. This would provide a discovery mechanism for any feature you might want to publish support for. However, I wonder the value of providing additional discovery mechanisms when the discovery mechanisms we already provide are rarely used and, in some cases, not needed or inappropriate to use. [Discovery of StartTLS is not needed, discovery of SASL mechanisms is inappropriate without appropriate consideration of security risks]. Kurt |