Re: MUST ref (Was: Last call on 'Named Subordinate References inLDAP Directories')

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 06:53 PM 5/7/01, Mark C Smith wrote:
> >1) Section 4.1 (The referral Object Class):  I can't think of a good
> >reason for the 'ref' attribute type to be mandatory.  I would like to
> >see it changed to a MAY.
> 
> It's a required attribute as returning no URLs is not allowed
> per RFC 2251 and allowing no 'ref' attribute would unduly
> complicate the specification and implementations.  Do you have
> a more specific reason for desiring support for a referral
> object with no ref attribute?

I don't believe that allowing an entry to have objectclass=referral and
no ref attribute unduly complicates the specification or
implementations.  In general, I believe all attribute types should be
optional unless there is a good reason to make them mandatory.  Why? 
Because operational experience has shown that it is inconvenient to
require administrators and LDAP clients to always add and remove the
"associated" objectclass values when adding or removing an attribute
type from an entry.  This is not a critical issue; I just think it would
be better to say "MAY ref."

-- 
Mark Smith
Directory Product Development / iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions
My words are my own, not my employer's.            Got LDAP?