Re: (ITS#6151) Update cosine.schema to RFC 4524

[hyc@symas.com]

masarati@aero.polimi.it wrote:
> 4) This, IMHO, implies that we need to provide two separate files, to
> allow DSA admins to either load strict RFC4524 schema (no obsolete items)
> or loose RFC4524 (entire RFC1274 schema).
>
> Now, we have different options to arrange the resulting schema files
> (names used below are only an example, the final name can be discussed
> when there's consensus on the approach):
>
> a) cosine.schema (== RFC1274)
>     cosine4524.schema (== RFC4524)
>     mutually exclusive (Kurt does not like this)
>
> b) cosine4524.schema (== RFC4524)
>     cosine.schema (== RFC1274 - RFC4524)
>     the latter includes the former
>
> c) cosine4524.schema (== RFC4524)
>     cosine1274.schema (== RFC1274 - RFC4524)
>
> (there might be more)

Yes, cosine.schema wrapping cosine4524.schema and cosine1274.schema might be best.

> Cases (a) and (b) have advantages: loading cosine.schema loads all RFC1274
> schema, thus existing configurations surely do not break.  I concur case
> (a) would cause a lot of complaints from people loading all available
> schema files and having conflicts.  Case (c) needs to modify
> configuration, but avoids file nesting, if that's a problem at all.

File nesting has some implications in cn=config, which is why I made the above 
suggestion.

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/