Re: [ldapext] groupOfEntries object class proposal

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>]

On Sep 18, 2007, at 3:44 AM, Ramsay, Ron wrote:

> Why not try to get the appropriate RFC revised to make 'member'
> optional?

X.501:
> The definition of information objects such as object classes,  
> attribute types, matching rules and name forms which have been  
> registered (i.e., assigned a name of type object identifier) are  
> static and cannot be modified. Changes to the semantics of such  
> information objects require the assignment of new object identifiers.

BCP 118 [RFC 4512]:
>    Published schema elements SHALL NOT be redefined.  Replacement  
> schema
>    elements (new OIDs, new NAMEs) SHOULD be defined as needed.

-- Kurt


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