Re: defining an LDAP schema for address books and PIMs

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Jochen Laser wrote:
>  I totally agree with Dieter in that there is need for better 
>  standardization here. You have hit on an important issue.
>  You should consider taking over this discussion to the general 
>  LDAP List, ldap@umich.edu.

+1

But I'd recommend to post schema proposals as personal I-D on the 
ietf-ldapext list. Although this WG has be closed this mailing is still the 
most appropriate forum. I'd be willing to co-author such a draft.

I consider all the mozillaPerson, evolutionPerson, <whatever app>Person 
schema to be just quick hacks. People who defined these schema definitions 
don't bother with researching existing person schema definitions which leads 
to conflicting use of e.g. attribute type names. Unfortunately most of the 
"schema designers" are somewhat resistent to learn about LDAP *before* 
defining such a schema. And afterwards they refuse to fix flaws in favour of 
being backward-compatible to their own mess. (Edward seems to be a notable 
exception.)

Ciao, Michael.