[KLUG Members] Pesky LDAP

[members@kalamazoolinux.org]

>I wouldn't think that adding to a schema to extend it would be a problem. 

It breaks down interoperability,  which is the whole point of LDAP.  One can use
Ximian Evolution, Pine, M$-Outlook (other than that I wish a pox on such
people), Eudora, IMP, Mutt, etc...  If you extend the schema for "standard"
attributes you basically have done nothing but created a new M$-Exchange.  And
the world already has one to many of those.

>If the remote clients don't know that the data is in the directory, it really
>shouldn't matter. 

Well... except that they can't see it.

>You can also use the preexisting OID's to extend the
>schema and define the syntax, depending on what you need.

No, you can't use preexisting OIDs,  that is a ****clear**** violation of the
rules.  If your a .com, .org, .net, etc... you can get your own OID for FREE
(and I'd hurry up and do it because who knows how long that will last).  The
1.1.x OID space is dead,  so you can use that for experimental purposed and
*temporary* definitions.  But the crux is that all attributes and object class
OIDs must be globally unique, and the only way to do that is to register (which
is free, BTW).

But still, schema extending should be avoided wherever possible.