Re: dITStructureRules/nameForms in subschema subentry for informational purpose

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> 
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> 
>> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Discussed this very briefly with Howard at LDAPcon 2007 based on an
>>>> idea
>>>> of Steve:
>>>>
>>>> Support for dITStructureRules and nameForms is still in OpenLDAP's
>>>> TODO.
>>>>
>>>> In the meanwhile slapd could accept definitions for both in slapd.conf
>>>> and simply pass them on to a schema-aware LDAP client for informational
>>>> purpose without enforcing them. Same function like rootDSE <file> in
>>>> slapd.conf.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> One could implement them in a fashion similar to ditContentRules...
>>> (server wide instead of subtree specfication wide).
>>
>> So you're voting against the approach suggested above?
> 
> No.  Above you say "without enforcing them". I suggest "with enforcing
> them", as ditContentRules are (if instantiated).

Well, this has been a while now. I understand that it would be much work
to fully implement this.

But since web2ldap fully supports DIT structures rules and nameforms
when adding/renaming entries it would be nice if I could stuff these
schema elements into the subschema subentry even if slapd does not
enforce them. Just as a hint to the client like the X-SUBST declaration
of syntaxes (see ITS#5663) or the rootDSE directive for extending the
rootDSE with the data read from a LDIF file. It's handy because web2ldap
then guides the user to do the right thing (choosing structural object
class and the RDN).

Yes, I could extend web2ldap to define additional schema elements at the
client-side. But I'd prefer if it's just in the server's subschema subentry.

Ciao, Michael.