Re: New schema

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

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> I think we should treat NADF schema as "optional" or
> "contributed" schema for now.  I'd leave creation of
> nadf.schema for later.

I think you mean commitment to CVS, not creation.  I already
have it.  It is a matter of whether we let it rot on my home
PC or we put it somewhere just in case I get hit by a truck.
Not that anyone could not redo it in two or three hours...

> Well, "deprecated" schema could be a fourth category of
> items...  I guess I rather just delete those that fall
> into this category.

I think that we should not just delete definitions that we
already distribute without giving ample warning.

> I'm thinking we should create a "core.schema" that includes
> all items who's use is detailed in RFC2251-RFC2256 plus
> RFC2247 and RFC2377 plus OpenLDAP-specific "core" items.
> Any dependent items described elsewhere would also be
> included.

I'll start moving in that direction.  Should we allocate
a number under 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203 for 'schema' and a number
of suballocations for objectclasses and attributetypes?

> I'm still thinking that pilot.schema (RFC1274) should
> be "optional," but those items required by RFC2247 or
> RFC2377 (or RFC2251-RFC2256) be incorporated into
> "core.schema".

Makes sense.

The 2251-2256 is, AFAIK, free from such dependencies.  As you
say, however, RFC2247 and RFC2377 (and RFC2307, IIRC) require
some support from RFC1274.

Julio