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

RE: unimplemented schema elements (was: models-09 comments)

To: "Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com>
Subject: RE: unimplemented schema elements (was: models-09 comments)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:43:12 -0800
Cc: "Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>, <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <1395B4B334FCC143B36AF788E68B6381E7C6F8@ausyms21.ca.com>
References: <1395B4B334FCC143B36AF788E68B6381E7C6F8@ausyms21.ca.com>

At 04:18 PM 1/7/2004, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>I don't see that you need to "recognise" extensibleObject to reject its use. 

I note that the MUST statement is more general and inserted for
reasons not specific to extensibleObject.  I'll have to review
those.

>I'd like to see the argument for recognising unsupported schema elements better argued. As far as I'm concerned, unsupported elements needn't be recognised. RFC 2251 and RFC 2252 do not require that they are (be?).

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before (at least with
attribute type names).  Is there any thing new here?

Kurt

References:
- RE: unimplemented schema elements (was: models-09 comments)
  - From: "Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com>

Prev by Date: RE: unimplemented schema elements (was: models-09 comments)
Next by Date: ISO 10646 v Unicode
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread