shouldn't be an issue, cause most of the time we inject a dummy member/uniqueMemeber at the time of creating an entry with groupOf(Unique)Names
and otoh, changing MUST to MAY is tolerable than the other way around On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Richard Sand <rs...@idfconnect.com> wrote: > Hi all - I know this topic is a rehash of an age old debate, whether > groupOfNames/groupOfUniqueNames should allow the member/uniquemember > attributes to be empty. Many LDAP vendors allow empty groups (all from the > Netscape lineage, CA Directory, AD) but that breaks RFC-compliance. So just > from a practical standpoint, if I want my LDAP to behave this way, is there > any runtime problem with changing the schema to make this attributes "MAY" > instead of "MUST"? I tried it and a cursory test seems ok so far. > > Best regards, > > Richard > > > > -- Kiran Ayyagari http://keydap.com