[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> What's the use-case for this? I'm concerned about overloading the >> semantics of Relax Rules control far beyond what's written in >> draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax. > > Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass > constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax" > control.
This is a technical description. > The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be > able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good > reasons. Currently I can't imagine a use-case for this particular violation of constraints. Do you have one? Just an example? > I decided to overload "relax" rather than defining a specific control > because I believe this fits into the spirit of "relax". I'm not sure. See, I try to support Relax Rules control in web2ldap. If the control is in effect the behaviour of the UI has to be heavily changed. I even considered proposing a that the Relax Rules control should have different values for specifying what particular constraint shall be relaxed. > In fact, the > resulting entry would violate a constraint, but would not violate the > protocol. Yes. I'm more concerned about complexity in a UI frontend. Ciao, Michael.
