Re: [ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject' object class

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

John McMeeking writes:

> 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.

Google found two different 'container's (+ 600 more results):

  IBM LDAP Directory Schema:
  ( 1.3.18.0.2.6.28 NAME 'container'
    DESC 'An object that can contain other objects.'
    SUP top STRUCTURAL
    MUST (cn) )

  Active Directory:
  ( 1.2.840.113556.1.3.23 NAME 'container'
    SUP top STRUCTURAL 
    MUST (cn)
    MAY (schemaVersion $ defaultClassStore) )

  schemaVersion and defaultClassStore are Active Directory
  attributes; I'd prefer to avoid them.

I could ask IBM to standardize their 'container'.  I don't think
anyone else should standardize their object class, in case they
want to be able to change it someday.  (Never mind that one isn't
supposed to do that; people do it anyway.)

I do miss some of the attributes I added, though.  In particular
'description'.  And 'enhancedSearchGuide' & 'searchGuide', at
least in theory:-)  I've never used them, but it looks like they
should be present in objects intented to have children.

-- 
Hallvard

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext