[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] groupOfEntries object class proposal
Ramsay, Ron wrote:
> Why not try to get the appropriate RFC revised to make 'member'
> optional?
Andrew et al discussed that at LDAPcon. The idea was to stay away from
changing the core LDAPv3 standard specs to avoid too much hassle. IMO
the chance is higher that a new object class specified in a very focused
spec gets easily adopted than all implementors reliably changing an
existing schema element.
> Even simply making 'member' optional in your own implementations, though
> inviting interoperability problems, would seem to have fewer issues than
> introducing a new object class.
> In fact, I think it is common to find
> that 'member' is optional inthe field.
Well, LDAP is for good interop. Isn't it?
I'm too often searching for interop bugs because vendors are not
sticking to standards...
Ciao, Michael.
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext