|
Hi Petter,
My opinion on your question about flagging your existing dhcpHost schema definition as auxiliary as a way to make it possible to add the dhcp schema attributes to a different object, ipHost in your case, is not a good idea. However, I would endorse creating essentially a duplicate definition of the dhcpHost class, e.g. dhcpHostAux, which does have the auxiliary class flag on it for use it situations like yours.
Mark Hinckley
>>> Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> 08/15/08 8:33 AM >>>
Hi. Trying to reach the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-ldap-schema-00.txt
have failed so far, and then it occured to me that it might be a
better idea to talk to you as the author of the dhcpd LDAP patch about
this. Check the message below.
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> Hi. During my work on Debian Edu, I came across an issue with the
> DHCP ldap schema we use. It seem to be based on the schema described
> at
> <URL: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/I-D/draft-ietf-dhc-ldap-schema-00.txt >.
> You are listed as one of the authors of this shema, and I wonder if it
> ever came past the draft period?
>
> I would very much like to create combined LDAP objects for ipHost
> from RFC 2307 and dhcpHost, to have only one object i LDAP per
> machine, and this is currently impossible. A way to work around it
> is to flag the dhcpHost class as auxiliary. Do you believe it is a
> good idea?
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
|