Re: invalid structural object class chain FAQ

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

X.501.  Or draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt.

At 11:47 AM 4/3/2003, Andrew Findlay wrote:
>The 'invalid structural object class chain' problem has become a
>frequently asked question, so I have added a note to the FAQ:
>
>        http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/883.html
>
>While writing the note I realised that I could not find an
>authoritative reference to the rule about structural classes. RFC2252
>merely says:
>
>   In general every entry will contain an abstract class ("top" or
>   "alias"), at least one structural object class, and zero or more
>   auxiliary object classes.  Whether an object class is abstract,
>   structural or auxiliary is defined when the object class identifier
>   is assigned.
>
>X.500(1988) does not divide objectclasses into categories at all, so
>where did this come from?  Could somone provide a reference?
>
>Thanks
>
>Andrew
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|                 From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd                 |
>| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
>|     http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/                +44 1628 782565     |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------