Re: "uniqueMember" in "groupOfUniqueNames"

MIRCEA PANA wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if this was already brought into the discussions but we are
> having a little compatibility trouble between a Netscape Directory 3.11
> and an X500 Directory (with LDAP interface).
> 
> The Netscape Directory 3.11 defines the "groupOfUniqueNames" objectClass
> with "MAY ...uniquemember" while the X500 Directory specifies "MUST ...
> uniqueMember" for the same objectClass. I believe that this may have
> been overlooked by Netscape during the implementation of the LDAP
> schema. RFC2256 specifies the "uniqueMember" attribute type as required
> (MUST) for the "groupOfUniqueNames" objectClass. The trouble comes with
> the various products that have been developed based on the "Netscape
> LDAP schema". They are now incompatible with the other (standard)
> Directory.
> 
> My question would be: who is right and who is wrong here?

RFC 2256 is correct.  This is a bug in our server's schema definition
files and we will address it in a future release of our server.  Thanks
for pointing it out.  Unfortunately, this bug has existed for a long
time (since our 1.0 release I think) and so I am sure some applications
intentionally or unintentionally rely on the fact that a
groupOfUniqueMembers entry need not have a uniquemember attribute.  A
similar bug exists in our definition of groupOfNames.

-- 
Mark Smith
iPlanet Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
My words are my own, not my employer's.   Got LDAP?