Re: Inconsistencies in ad-schema docs and text files
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 00:01 +0530, Sreepathi Pai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran a diff against _normalized_ versions of the MS-AD* text files
> (that were updated to fix all issues reported so far) and text files
> generated from the documentation and found an additional number of
> issues. Some of them are text-extraction issues, but some seem to be
> the result of the text files containing old content. I attach the diff
> for perusal, each attribute has been prefixed with its cn. Both the
> ADA and ADSC files are compared (however the files were merged,
> sorry).
Richard: On our phone call before the break I said that this was not a
blocking issue. On reflection I was wrong - I thought that Sreepathi
had found just a couple of typos, and that we would get this all wrapped
up in short order, giving you time to sort out an optimal solution in
the long term.
Given the scale of the errors in the supplied schema, and that even the
PDF version was clearly hand-constructed, I cannot trust it as a true
representation of the AD schema. Both the text and PDF schema documents
as presented are unacceptable in their current forms, and we need to go
back to the start on this.
It was hoped that in using these documents we would gain certainty -
using a clearly licenced, 'blessed' version/copy of the official AD
schema. Instead, we have ended up in this quagmire.
This issue is blocking us from making a Samba4 alpha release we have
scheduled for this week.
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed