[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: dc question
>>>I would postulate that the dc in an objectClass dc has nothing
>>>whatsoever to do with the dc as part of the dn attribute in an rdn.
>>Wrong. Read the LDAP standard (rfc2251), section 3.2 (Data Model):
>> (...) Entries have names: one or more attribute values
>> from the entry form its relative distinguished name (RDN), (...)
>Noted. But what's done can't be undone
>>>You want to put: dc: Snoggit instead of dc: blabla, that's o.k. with
>>Yes, as other have said, OpenLDAP does not check this requirement.
>And the day it does, what happens to "People around the World in
>general"s' working DITs?
If they obeyed the rules, they will never notice when OpenLDAP starts to
enforce this. OpenLDAP has steadily grown more forceful about people
keeping the rules, the structureal/auxillary object class relationship is
It is clear even in the definition of the rdn (attribute of the object
that makes it unique within its context) that the rdn is a presentation in
the dn of an existing attribute.