[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of DHCP LDAP schema draft?

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

Reply to: