Hi Andi, Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2011, 10:58:12 schrieb Andreas B. Mundt: > Hi, > > in the process of overhauling the ldap tree, I am thinking about > renaming ou=group to ou=groups in order to better reflect the plural > form. > > I don't know why ou=group was chosen, perhaps because the expired and > in the meantime deleted RFC2307bis used ou=group in an example. I > cannot imagine that using ou=group or ou=groups makes any difference > for storing our possix groups, but from what I have seen, it looks as > if using ou=groups is more common and the linguistic correct form. > > The change is not worth an argument, but I think as we need to make > some changes in ldap with the upcoming release anyway, we should use > that chance to also improve that little thing. > > Neither using ou=groups nor ou=group is a big deal, but we have to > live for some (hopefully long) time with what we choose now ... > > What do you think? > > Best regards, > > Andi +1 from Mike... Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0x1943CA5B mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.