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

Re: LDAPsubentry

Hmmm...I made it structural, because that's how the X.500 subentry
is defined...I can see doing it either way.

Any reaction from the X.500 community?  Does it matter to you,
one way or the other?  To be clear, the draft specifies ldapSubEntry
to be STRUCTURAL, and Kurt's proposal is to make it ABSTRACT,
instead.

Ed

=================
Ed Reed
Reed-Matthews, Inc.
+1 801 785 0315
http://www.OnCallDBA.COM

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> 11/18/99 10:42AM >>>
Forwarded to owning WG...

>To: Ed_Reed@Novell.com
>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>
>Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>
>I would like to see LDAP subentry be an abstract object class
>to which is then subclassed as necessary to provide structure
>(including naming attributes).
>
>As defined, LDAP subentry requires cn.  This may not be appropriate
>for LDAP subentries.   I suggest:
>
>( ldapSubEntryOID NAME 'ldapSubEntry'
>   DESC 'LDAP Subentry abstract class, version 1'
>     SUP top ABSTRACT )
>
>( cnSubEntryOID NAME 'cnSubEntry'
>   DESC 'CN LDAP Subentry class, version 1'
>     SUP ldapSubEntry STRUCTURAL
>     MUST ( cn ) )
>
>Your schema definition would then be split as appropriate between
>the abstract class and the structural class.
>
>Regards, Kurt
>
>
>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff 
style="FONT: 10pt Arial; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px">
<DIV>Hmmm...I made it structural, because that's how the X.500 subentry</DIV>
<DIV>is defined...I can see doing it either way.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Any reaction from the X.500 community?&nbsp; Does it matter to you,</DIV>
<DIV>one way or the other?&nbsp; To be clear, the draft specifies 
ldapSubEntry</DIV>
<DIV>to be STRUCTURAL, and Kurt's proposal is to make it ABSTRACT,</DIV>
<DIV>instead.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Ed</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>=================<BR>Ed Reed<BR>Reed-Matthews, Inc.<BR>+1 801 785 
0315<BR><A 
href="http://www.OnCallDBA.COM";>http://www.OnCallDBA.COM</A><BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; 
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" &lt;Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org&gt; 11/18/99 10:42AM 
&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>Forwarded to owning WG...<BR><BR>&gt;To: 
Ed_Reed@Novell.com<BR>&gt;From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" 
&lt;Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org&gt;<BR>&gt;Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I 
would like to see LDAP subentry be an abstract object class<BR>&gt;to which is 
then subclassed as necessary to provide structure<BR>&gt;(including naming 
attributes).<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;As defined, LDAP subentry requires cn.&nbsp; This 
may not be appropriate<BR>&gt;for LDAP subentries.&nbsp;&nbsp; I 
suggest:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;( ldapSubEntryOID NAME 
'ldapSubEntry'<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; DESC 'LDAP Subentry abstract class, version 
1'<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SUP top ABSTRACT )<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;( 
cnSubEntryOID NAME 'cnSubEntry'<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; DESC 'CN LDAP Subentry 
class, version 1'<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SUP ldapSubEntry 
STRUCTURAL<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MUST ( cn ) )<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Your 
schema definition would then be split as appropriate between<BR>&gt;the abstract 
class and the structural class.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Regards, 
Kurt<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>