Subject: Re: Models: Aux class deletion

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:48:01 -0700

Yeah, I mis-read Models to say that one could add an aux class if it is
a superclass of an allowed aux class.
 
So in the case where Aux1 gets implicitly added, if it is not
explicitly removed along with Aux2, the server will return
objectClassViolation.

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 3/8/04 4:32:42 PM >>>
At 02:56 PM 3/8/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>From reading the Models draft, we can't find how to handle this
scenario:
> 
>1) Aux2 subclasses Aux1
>2) Aux2 and Aux1 are added to the objectClass attribute of an entry
>3) Aux2 is allowed by the DIT content rule for the structural object
class of the entry, so the add (or modify) succeeds
>4) Aux2 is removed from the entry's objecClass

As servers are required to ensure the result of the modification
still conforms to the schema and the schema doesn't allow
aux1 to allowed (except as a superclass of a allowed subclass),
the operation must fail.

>Should Aux1 remain in the objectClass attribute when Aux2 is removed?

Well, given both were explicitly added, I'd say that the requesting
only aux2 to be removed is an error. It clearly leaves a
non-allowed auxiliary in place.

Now, if Aux1 was only implicitly added, one could argue that it
was implicitly deleted as well. However, it seems that view
wasn't supported by consensus. Hence, auxiliary classes must
be explicitly removed even when their addition was implicit.

Kurt