> Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> >> On Jun 1, 2009, at 4:30 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Updated schema file cosine-update.schema attached. >> >> I note that differs are generally preferred, even where the file is >> mostly changed. This helps ensure changes that others might make to the >> file you started with are not lost. > > I thought about sending a diff but the file in this form is more > readable for easy review. Could someone please look at it whether that's > ok?
> Another approach would be to have two schema files, one which only > contains the schema descriptions from RFC 4524 and one with the missing > schema descriptions from RFC 1274 with the latter obviously being > dependent on the former. I have one preliminary question for Kurt: since rfc4524 obsoletes rfc1274, should those schema items that were not brought forward be marked as OBSOLETE? If yes, then all schema could fit in one file. I'd like a clear way to separate valid from obsolete schema. The obsolete items should be available for backwards compatibility. As an alternative, I'd like to have a "slim" (without obsolete) and a complete version of the file. Could you please upload the file? Through the ITS attachments don't work too well. >>> IPR notice: >>> This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software and RFC 4524 and RFC >>> 1274. All of the modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the >>> attached file were developed by Michael Ströder <[email protected]>. >>> I have not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. >> >> While this notice of origin is fine, you did not include a rights >> statement. > > I, Michael Ströder, hereby place the modified schema file cosine.schema > attached to ITS#6151 (and only these modifications) into the public > domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or > redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other > notice. Am I right in assuming this IPR is fine? Thanks, p.
