Re: why posixAccount MUST contain 'cn'?

Kurt Zeilenga 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…   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.

So RFC2307bis must start over with completely new NAMEs
for e.g. posixGroup?

(Personally I don't care about assigning a new OID because most LDAP client
implementations don't handle OIDs anyway.)

Ciao, Michael.

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext