[ldapext] inetOrgPerson 2.0 (was: draft charter comment)

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Tue, 07 November 2017 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068CD13FCB4 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:53:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_vwgZfG8bpd for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:53:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED5B13FCDE for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.hv.local (mail.stroeder.local [10.1.1.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer "stroeder.com Server CA no. 2009-07" (not verified)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B6A54E4; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:53:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local [10.1.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail1.hv.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E340F9D; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:53:09 +0100 (CET)
To: Andrew Findlay <andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk>
Cc: ldapext@ietf.org
References: <1509061159.20220.91.camel@redhat.com> <20171107092304.GM25671@slab.skills-1st.co.uk>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
Openpgp: id=43C8730E84A20E560722806C07DC7AE36A8BC938
Message-ID: <9246dd86-5e02-38d8-5425-a0c48199ffa4@stroeder.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:53:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171107092304.GM25671@slab.skills-1st.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms050200060209000304000109"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/sSSFvCRrxwmEXOva8G0JB4h9ByY>
Subject: [ldapext] inetOrgPerson 2.0 (was: draft charter comment)
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:53:30 -0000

Andrew Findlay wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 09:39:19AM +1000, William Brown wrote:
> 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/4fEh3Y9adJEl24r2F0598bnXrcg/?qid=f94a915c2574190c029541bc1d190a5e
> 
> Looks good to me, and I am certainly willing to do some of the work.

Glad to hear that.

> What was inetOrgPerson 2.0 all about?

Missing attributes we all add later by defining yet another custom
person object class.

Possible examples:
birthName, birthPlace, buildingName, businessTitle, c (alias
countryName), dateOfBirth, delegatesTo, employeeType, gender, nickName,
organizationalStatus, personalTitle, serialNumber, uniqueIdentifier,
userClass

I'm pretty sure many of us have other attributes to add.
We could try to build up on the schema work in the higher-education
community but should carefully try avoid bloat.

We could also consider to deprecate use of some attributes in new
deployments. As recommendation for local profiles we might even define
DIT content rules with NOT as formal but optional deprecation spec.

Possibe deprecation examples:
internationaliSDNNumber
photo (Fax syntax!)
x500UniqueIdentifier

Ciao, Michael.