Re: [ldapext] A more radical approach to 2307

[Michael Ströder <[e-mail]>]

Andrew Findlay wrote:
> RFC2307, 2307bis and DBIS all start from the NIS/YP/files-in-etc model
> and represent the data in LDAP with varying degrees of fidelity.
> Is this actually a good idea? I rather think not.

Yepp. RFC 2307bis should be splitted.

> The resulting set of attributes and classes would be *much* smaller than
> the 2307 set. Some whole categories could just vanish, e.g.:
> 
> 	All the shadow password stuff (draft-behera is difficult enough
> 	and we don't need to duplicate its function on the client side)

Yes, 'shadowAccount' is already regarded deprecated.

> 	memberUid (we really *dont* need a POSIX-specific way to
> 	represent groups, and the syntax of memberUid does not even
> 	match that of uid)

That's the only thing we might want to consider to keep because of
backwards-compability to existing client implementations.

> 	Most of the less-used NIS-map attributes and classes could be
> 	hived off into separate documents, or even dumped in favour of a
> 	generic structural lookup table with explicit case ignore/case
> 	sensitive semantics.

It might be worth to preserve some of the stuff but really in a separate generic
document.

Ciao, Michael.