Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Jun 1, 2009, at 4:30 AM, michael@stroeder.com wrote:
Updated schema file cosine-update.schema attached.
I note that differs are generally preferred, even where the file is mostly changed. This helps ensure changes that others might make to the file you started with are not lost.
I thought about sending a diff but the file in this form is more readable for easy review. Could someone please look at it whether that's ok?
Another approach would be to have two schema files, one which only contains the schema descriptions from RFC 4524 and one with the missing schema descriptions from RFC 1274 with the latter obviously being dependent on the former.
I have one preliminary question for Kurt: since rfc4524 obsoletes rfc1274, should those schema items that were not brought forward be marked as OBSOLETE? If yes, then all schema could fit in one file. I'd like a clear way to separate valid from obsolete schema. The obsolete items should be available for backwards compatibility. As an alternative, I'd like to have a "slim" (without obsolete) and a complete version of the file. Could you please upload the file? Through the ITS attachments don't work too well.
IPR notice: This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software and RFC 4524 and RFC 1274. All of the modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the attached file were developed by Michael Ströder michael@stroeder.com. I have not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party.
While this notice of origin is fine, you did not include a rights statement.
I, Michael Ströder, hereby place the modified schema file cosine.schema attached to ITS#6151 (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice.
Am I right in assuming this IPR is fine? Thanks, p.