Re: Auxiliary object class practically of no use?

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

dE wrote:
> On 04/15/15 19:31, Howard Chu wrote:
> > dE wrote:
> > > According to RFC 4512
> > >
> > > An entry can belong to any subset of the set of auxiliary object
> > >     classes allowed by the DIT content rule associated with the
> > >     structural object class of the entry.
> > >
> > >  From what I understand, this means auxiliary classes do not 'augment';
> > > the no. of attributes which are possible in an entry must be a subset of
> > > the structural object class the entry belongs to.
> >
> > You have completely ignored "DIT content rule" in the quoted sentence.
>
> But it says "DIT content rule associated with the
>      structural object class of the entry"

A DIT content rule is always associated with exactly one structural object 
class (by having the same OID). This does not say anything about the use of 
auxiliary object classes within the same entry.

Could you please come up with a concrete example to better explain your question.

Ciao, Michael.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature