Re: why posixAccount MUST contain 'cn'?

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Michael Ströder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Michael Ströder <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>>>>> I'd be in favour of relaxing this to MAY cn in RFC2307bis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See BCP 118 [RFC 4521], Section 5 concerning IETF rules for changing previously published schema definitions.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but RFC2307bis also changes posixGroup schema.
>>> 
>>> Don’t expect I-Ds which violate BCPs to become RFCs.
>> 
>> Are you saying that draft-howard-rfc2307bis will never become an RFC because
>> it changes the declaration of 'posixGroup' ('member' instead of 'memberUID')
>> defined in the experimental RFC 2307?
> 
> I won’t say “never” as well BCPs themselves are subject today…  
s/today/to change/

>  but I can tell you that I, as the IESG’s appointed LDAP registries expert to IANA, have and will reject requests to register LDAP parameters which purport to modify previously published LDAP schema definitions.  Of course, such actions are appealable.
> 
> — Kurt
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext