Subject: [ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject' object class

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:28:05 +0200

People often make container entries like 'ou=people,dc=foo,dc=no' which
use object class 'organizationalUnit' even though such entries do not
represent real org.units at all.  organizationalUnit just seems to get
used because no better standard object class is available.

So I've submitted a small Internet-Draft for an 'untypedObject' class to
use instead:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-furuseth-ldap-untypedobject-00.txt

Abstract:

  "This document defines an 'untypedObject' structural object class for
  the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and X.500.  This is
  useful for entries with no 'natural' choice of structural object
  class, e.g. if an entry must exist even though its contents are
  uninteresting."

Please comment.  For one thing, I'd like to know if I should rename it
to e.g. 'subtreeBase', supposed to be used to the above purpose only,
or generalize (object class 'something'?) for other purposes as well.

-- 
Hallvard

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: John McMeeking <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:30:18 -0500

Some LDAP servers ship with a "container" object class.  It might have come
from Active Directory; at least they use it.  Perhaps we could standardize
container, rather than introducing a different objectclass.  I know
"container" is shipped with more than just Active Directory, but I don't
know how wide-spread it is.

John  McMeeking

             Hallvard B                                                    
             Furuseth                                                      
             <h.b.furuseth@usi                                          To 
             t.uio.no>                 [email-masked]                    
             Sent by:                                                   cc 
             ldapext-bounces@i                                             
             etf.org                                               Subject 
                                       [ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject'  
                                       object class                        
             06/10/2004 09:28                                              
             AM                                                            

Abstract:

--
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:11 +0200

John McMeeking writes:

> Some LDAP servers ship with a "container" object class.  It might
> have come from Active Directory; at least they use it.  Perhaps we
> could standardize container, rather than introducing a different
> objectclass.  I know "container" is shipped with more than just
> Active Directory, but I don't know how wide-spread it is.

Google found two different 'container's (+ 600 more results):

  IBM LDAP Directory Schema:
  ( 1.3.18.0.2.6.28 NAME 'container'
    DESC 'An object that can contain other objects.'
    SUP top STRUCTURAL
    MUST (cn) )

  Active Directory:
  ( 1.2.840.113556.1.3.23 NAME 'container'
    SUP top STRUCTURAL 
    MUST (cn)
    MAY (schemaVersion $ defaultClassStore) )

  schemaVersion and defaultClassStore are Active Directory
  attributes; I'd prefer to avoid them.

I could ask IBM to standardize their 'container'.  I don't think
anyone else should standardize their object class, in case they
want to be able to change it someday.  (Never mind that one isn't
supposed to do that; people do it anyway.)

I do miss some of the attributes I added, though.  In particular
'description'.  And 'enhancedSearchGuide' & 'searchGuide', at
least in theory:-)  I've never used them, but it looks like they
should be present in objects intented to have children.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: John McMeeking <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:46:37 -0500

I'm curious whether anybody else sees any particular benefit or drawback to
borrowing container.  If container really is provided by only those two
vendors -- and I made no attempt to discover this -- it probably doesn't
make any difference to most folks if a totally new object class is
introduced and would avoid any potential conflict with the private
definitions of this object class.  On the other hand, if a meaningful
number of people have borrowed "container" on their own and extended their
server's schema, it might be advantageous.  IBM and Microsoft would have to
decide what to do if the definition is expanded to include description,
searchGuide, and enhancedSearchGuide.

John  McMeeking

Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> wrote on 06/10/2004 01:06:11