[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject' object class
Some LDAP servers ship with a "container" object class. It might have come
from Active Directory; at least they use it. Perhaps we could standardize
container, rather than introducing a different objectclass. I know
"container" is shipped with more than just Active Directory, but I don't
know how wide-spread it is.
John McMeeking
Hallvard B
Furuseth
<h.b.furuseth@usi To
t.uio.no> ldapext@ietf.org
Sent by: cc
ldapext-bounces@i
etf.org Subject
[ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject'
object class
06/10/2004 09:28
AM
People often make container entries like 'ou=people,dc=foo,dc=no' which
use object class 'organizationalUnit' even though such entries do not
represent real org.units at all. organizationalUnit just seems to get
used because no better standard object class is available.
So I've submitted a small Internet-Draft for an 'untypedObject' class to
use instead:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-furuseth-ldap-untypedobject-00.txt
Abstract:
"This document defines an 'untypedObject' structural object class for
the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and X.500. This is
useful for entries with no 'natural' choice of structural object
class, e.g. if an entry must exist even though its contents are
uninteresting."
Please comment. For one thing, I'd like to know if I should rename it
to e.g. 'subtreeBase', supposed to be used to the above purpose only,
or generalize (object class 'something'?) for other purposes as well.
--
Hallvard
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext