Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, March 06, 2017 4:37 PM +0100 "A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de> wrote:Hello, while planning a data scheme update we found it handy to have a unique value for each entry. short time later we found "entryUUID" :-) But we are still unsure.Should we simply use entryUUID or should we extend our schema to hold a new attribute similar to entryUUID.entryUUID is defined in RFC4530, as an internal LDAP attribute. Personally, if you need a UUID for tracking, I would create your own specific to your application/needs. For example, when I was at Stanford, we used suRegID (stanford university registry ID) and when I was at zimbra, we used zimbraID (zimbra identifier). There have been format changes in the past that required wiping out some of the generated attributes when going between releases.
This is bad advice. If you actually want a UUID then use entryUUID. As noted, it is defined in RFC4530 which means it isn't going to change. The format of UUIDs is well-established in internet standards.
When an existing attribute has *exactly* the syntax and semantics that you want, use it.
suRegID and zimbraID are not UUIDs are they?
Using your own identifier ensures that will not be an issue. Also, if you do things like allow backing up/restoring user entries that have gotten deleted, a restored entry (depending on the method use) may end up with a new entryUUID.
Yes, you should only use the recommended backup procedures. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/