More on DIT content rules

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

HI!

Still browsing through draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-09...

In section 2.4.3 there's written:

  [..] If no DIT content rule is associated with
  the structural object class of the entry, the entry cannot belong to
  any auxiliary object class.

I don't understand this statement. Shouldn't the 'cannot' be 'can'?

From section 4.1.6.:

    MUST, MAY, and NOT specify lists of attribute types which are
        required, allowed, or precluded, respectively, from appearing in
        entries subject to this DIT content rule; and
    <extensions> describe extensions.

I'm a little bit scared of 'MUST' and 'MAY' extending the 'MUST' and 'MAY' 
of object classes. I consider this being redundant to schema design with 
object classes. Personally I'd appreciate a hint in the text stating that 
use of 'MUST' and 'MAY' in a DIT content rules is NOT RECOMMENDED since 
clients or servers might not support DIT content rules. Well, such a hint 
might be a little too much in the direction of a best practice guide.

Ciao, Michael.