On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Michael Ströder wrote: > Discussed this very briefly with Howard at LDAPcon 2007 based on an idea > of Steve: > > Support for dITStructureRules and nameForms is still in OpenLDAP's TODO. > > In the meanwhile slapd could accept definitions for both in slapd.conf > and simply pass them on to a schema-aware LDAP client for informational > purpose without enforcing them. Same function like rootDSE <file> in > slapd.conf. > > Opinions? One could implement them in a fashion similar to ditContentRules... (server wide instead of subtree specfication wide).

On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Michael Ströder wrote: > Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> >> On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Michael Ströder wrote: >> >>> Discussed this very briefly with Howard at LDAPcon 2007 based on an >>> idea >>> of Steve: >>> >>> Support for dITStructureRules and nameForms is still in OpenLDAP's >>> TODO. >>> >>> In the meanwhile slapd could accept definitions for both in slapd.conf >>> and simply pass them on to a schema-aware LDAP client for informational >>> purpose without enforcing them. Same function like rootDSE <file> in >>> slapd.conf. >>> >>> Opinions? >> >> One could implement them in a fashion similar to ditContentRules... >> (server wide instead of subtree specfication wide). > > So you're voting against the approach suggested above? No. Above you say "without enforcing them". I suggest "with enforcing them", as ditContentRules are (if instantiated).