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

Re: Models: Schema references to undefined entities

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: 
In [Models], please specify whether the various schema elements
may refer to OIDs of entities that are not defined in the schema.


Yes, this has to defined more clearly.

E.g. an objectclass with "MAY (<oid of undefined attribute>)", an
attribute type with an undefined syntax, a DIT content rule with
an undefined objectclass in the "AUX" part, etc.

Once I had a lengthy discussion with Kurt about some attribute types referencing missing syntax OIDs. We did not reach consensus about semantics. Kurt's claim was that e.g. a LDAP syntax can be 'partially supported' and hence not be listed in the sub schema sub entry.

Such undefined entities wouldn't be useful for anything in the
directory, but it could be useful to allow them in the schema
because a schema element could be defined without defining
everything it depends on. 

At least with LDAP syntaxes this seems to be common practice today. :-/

For example, an attribute type defined
by the server's standard setup may have to be omitted because of a name conflict with a locally defined attribute type. One could
edit the attribute out of the object class which uses it as well,
but that's uglier since clients would receive an incorrect
definition of that object class.

If the object class references the attribute type by name isn't there still a naming conflict? IMHO the 'locally defined attribute type' gets referenced thus changing the object class definition. Maybe it's me but this sounds rather strange to me.

Ciao, Michael.