Re: New schema

[Julio Sánchez Fernández <j_sanchez@stl.es>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> How about we add them to servers/slapd/schema?

Done.

> I'm am not sure how best to organize the information in files.
> I do think we should separate items by source.  Hence, I think
> we should have a separate file per source:
> 
> Standard track RFCs:
>         rfc2252.schema  (required)
>         rfc2256.schema  (x500 user)

I have not followed this advice now and I will present the rationale
below.  I am currently attending a security conference until tomorrow
and my time is limited for the time being, so excuse me if I do not
address all points for a few days.

I had the files split by RFC last week, but I reconsidered.  The
problem I saw is that RFC numbers are ephemeral and new specifications
are published with new numbers.  Our current "standard" RFC2251-6
are, IIRC, Proposed Standard and can undergo two change stages before
they get to an official status.  If we name files after the RFCs,
we are likely to create confusion to our "customers".  I think these
files should be named after the concepts they represent.  That's
why I used 'pilot' for RFC1274 and 'std' (now renamed to 'standard')
for RFC2251-6.  We can go for a fine-grain split as you suggest, but
I am not convinced about using RFC names here.  But that is just my
opinion, and I will go with whatever is agreed to be better.

For the time being, I have commited standard.schema, pilot.schema
and misc.schema.  Umich and nadf/fips things are on hold.

You will probably need cvs update -d to get the new directory.

Regards,

Julio