Re: [ldapext] empty-groupOfNames-issue

[Michael Ströder <[e-mail]>]

Andrew Findlay wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
>> An auxiliary class may be a better choice for a standard.
> 
> Yes: I also prefer to define aux classes where possible.

Note that DIT content rules (DCRs), DIT structure rules and name forms can only
be defined for structural object classes.

=> I prefer to have a structural object class for group entries.

With those rules you can define a local profile for structural object classes.
E.g. I make heavy use of DCRs with NOT to prevent lazy people from abusing
attributes for any blurb breaking semantics.

Having said this:
If we change the structural object class 'groupOfNames' to MAY member,
backward-compability can be easily achieved by locally adding MUST member to a
accompanying DIT content rule (on LDAP servers supporting DCRs). :-)

Ciao, Michael.