On Dec 21, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Michael Str=F6der wrote:
Kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
Yes, it has long been our practice not to publish schema elements =
which =3D
are not yet well standardized. This would include any element which =
=3D
carries a OpenLDAP.666 OID. =20 The idea being that use of such attributes should be limited to early =
=3D
adopters and such.
=20 Sorry, but this practice is inconsequent.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that we should avoid publishing = ''works in progress'' in production systems. Works in progress, by = their very nature, are subject to change without notice.
The attributes are returned in LDAP responses
Generally because the client asked for more than it should have. = Clients really shouldn't generally be asking for * and/or +. The two exceptions are clients which are servers attempting to = server-to-server replication and clients operated by directory = administrators. Clients which are intended to support various user applications really = should ask only for what they designed to consume.
and therefore a client should be able to look up the attribute type description in the schema e.g. to determine the syntax.
I disagree. Schema may not be made available to the client for any = number of reasons. The X.500 and LDAP specifications allow for this.
=20 Some of the OIDs are now with .666 for years. Each time this topic is =
raised
nothing happens...
That's because (in general) the ''works in progress'' have not be = finalized. If something hasn't changed in years, then maybe it's time = to finalize it and, in doing so, assign it final OID.
-- Kurt=
-
Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org