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

Re: subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)

To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Subject: Re: subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:08:34 -0800
Cc: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>, ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <HBF.20030212mjwa@bombur.uio.no>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030210074930.01a0cec8@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030131162356.02939540@127.0.0.1> <HBF.20030131krqk@bombur.uio.no> <3E3AE99F.3090006@stroeder.com> <HBF.20030210tk2o@bombur.uio.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20030210074930.01a0cec8@127.0.0.1>

At 01:28 PM 2/12/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>  Clients SHOULD NOT assume that server supports all published or
>  referenced elements of a particular definition.


How about dropping the 4.2 addition suggestion (I
made in the summary (item 11) and instead add the
following to 4.4?

        Clients SHOULD NOT assume a published subschema is
        complete nor assume the server supports all schema
       elements it publishes.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>

References:
- subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: Models: Schema references to undefined entities
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: Models: Schema references to undefined entities
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Re: subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>

Prev by Date: Re: Models: Schema references to undefined entities
Next by Date: Re: subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread