[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Openldap 2.x but still no roaming profiles
At 09:59 PM 9/17/00 +0200, Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> As far as Netscape Roaming interoperability goes, I suggest you
>> redefine (with new OIDs) each attribute type of binary syntax
>> to be octetString syntax. This is likely what Netscape meant
>> all along. As I noted previously, arbitrarily mapping old
>> 'bin' to binary does make sense.
BTW, I meant "does NOT make sense". Anyways, you appear to be
on the right track.
>Ok. So in order to provide a schema file for OpenLDAP I would take the
> 1. Get myself an OID assigned.
> 2. Rewrite the schema file
> 3. Test, test and test some more untill I know it works perfectly.
> 4. Document the steps involved including slapd.conf, LDIF examples and my
> own schema file.
This sounds like reasonable steps for developing an alternative
> 1. Change the schema file so it will deviate from the one from Netscape.
> 2. Keep all quite about it and let everyone fight their own fight.
If you hack someone's schema (as opposed to defining an alternative
schema specification), don't publish it.
>Or try to get some OIDs from a friendly manufacturer.
It don't rightly matter who's OIDs are used... just as long as they
are assigned permanently.
>In case I want to take the first route I just want to make sure we won't
>get loads of similar schema files trying to solve the same issue with
>everyone's own OID's. (I rather not create the 9th identical solution on a
>beaten path. ;-)
Well, the project can help by publishing a single recommended alternative
schema. However, there will always be some who go their own way (for
a variety of reasons). That's life. Of course, I would hope that
eventually the application vendor (Netscape) would step in and offer
an updated, complete LDAPv3 specification for these items.
Discussing your alternative schema specification in a Netscape
specific forum might help prod some action out of them. [Netscape
is actually fairly responsive in comparison to other vendors].