Re: why posixAccount MUST contain 'cn'?

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Michael Ströder <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes, as posixGroup has already been published, if you don’t want to use it as published, you need to create a replacement for it… and that replacement has to have a new OID and a new NAME.

- Kurt

> 
> (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