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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
