Andrew,
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:33:00AM +1000, Steven Legg wrote:
Instead of defining a specific object class, perhaps all we need is a *convention* that any entry that contains the member attribute is to be treated as a group.
It would still need an object class that permits the member attribute. How would such a convention represent an empty group?
I stated it badly. What I meant was: any entry of an object class that permits the member attribute is to be treated as a group. An empty group is an entry of an object class where the member attribute is defined to be optional, and the member attribute does not currently appear in the entry. The convention could also be extended object classes where the member attribute is permitted by a content rule.
Regards, Steven
_______________________________________________ Ldapext mailing list Ldapext@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext