Re: Summary of [Models] issues from WG Last Call

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 02:30 AM 2/13/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> Please let the WG know (within the next few days) if I've missed
>> any issue
>
>This one.  Couldn't find it in the archive:
>
>>From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
>>Message-Id: <HBF.20030210tnvk@bombur.uio.no>
>>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:29:26 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Models: Detail with Object Class Definitions
>> 
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>>At 02:42 PM 1/30/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>> I suggest the following addition to [Models] 4.1.1 (Object
>>>> Class Definitions):
>>>>
>>>> "Note that the MUST and MAY lists may be modified by DIT
>>>> Content Rules (see 4.1.6)."
>>> 
>>> I think that might actually lead to confusion as one might
>>> think that the DIT content rule is "modifying" the object
>>> class definition.  
>> 
>> True.  How about
>> 
>>    "Note that which attributes MAY and MUST be present in an
>>    entry is also affected by DIT Content Rules (see 4.1.6)."

I think that the statements in Section 2.4:
        - regulating, in conjunction with DIT content rule
        specifications, the attributes that are contained in entries;

and Section 2.4.2:
        - the structural object class of an entry is used, along
        with an associated DIT content rule, to control the content
        of an entry

and Section 4:
    c) DIT Content Rule definitions that extend the
    specification of allowable attributes for entries
    beyond those indicated by the structural object classes
    of the entries;

as well as those in Section 4.1.6 are quite sufficient.

Kurt