[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: models: objectClass;option
At 07:44 AM 4/16/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Should [Models] say anything about objectClass attributes with
Well, should [Models] say anything about subtypes of this or
various other attributes. I think not namely because one
could devise an extension where that made sense. For
sense, one could have 'objectClass;auxiliary'
'objectClass;abstract' and 'objectClass;structural' which
separately listed classes of each kind, if requested
that way. I don't see much problem with that.
I do see a problem, in general, with extensions which
are not truly optional. While I think that's mostly a
topic for an extension guidelines document, I think it
would be wise for to make a statement in this area in
an appropriate place.
LDAP is an extensible protocol. Extensions are
expected to be truly optional.
>I can't say it worries me, but maybe someone else cares.
>That is, MAY/SHOULD/MUST [NOT] the implementation treat an object class
>attribute with a recognized option as a normal object class unless the
>option description says differently?
> dn: l=foo,o=mysil
> l: foo
> objectClass: locality
> objectClass;lang-no: person
> objectClass;lang-en: country