[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

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

> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 4:30 AM, michael@stroeder.com wrote:
>>> Updated schema file cosine-update.schema attached.
>> I note that differs are generally preferred, even where the file is
>> mostly changed.  This helps ensure changes that others might make to the
>> file you started with are not lost.
> I thought about sending a diff but the file in this form is more
> readable for easy review. Could someone please look at it whether that's
> ok?

> Another approach would be to have two schema files, one which only
> contains the schema descriptions from RFC 4524 and one with the missing
> schema descriptions from RFC 1274 with the latter obviously being
> dependent on the former.

I have one preliminary question for Kurt: since rfc4524 obsoletes rfc1274,
should those schema items that were not brought forward be marked as
OBSOLETE?  If yes, then all schema could fit in one file.  I'd like a
clear way to separate valid from obsolete schema.  The obsolete items
should be available for backwards compatibility.  As an alternative, I'd
like to have a "slim" (without obsolete) and a complete version of the
file.  Could you please upload the file?  Through the ITS attachments
don't work too well.

>>> IPR notice:
>>> This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software and RFC 4524 and RFC
>>> 1274. All of the modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the
>>> attached file were developed by Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>.
>>> I have not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party.
>> While this notice of origin is fine, you did not include a rights
>> statement.
> I, Michael Ströder, hereby place the modified schema file cosine.schema
> attached to ITS#6151 (and only these modifications) into the public
> domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or
> redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other
> notice.

Am I right in assuming this IPR is fine?  Thanks, p.