My sincere apologies... I'm a newbee in this area & I was unware of this
fact regarding OIDs. Thank you for the information. I will make the
appropriate change.
Would you help me correct the syntax of ldif file that I'm using for adding
this objectclass ?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Adam Tauno Williams <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 14:17 +0530, Shamika Joshi wrote:
> > I tried adding my own auxiliary objectclass as below but I get this
> > error, I'm definately not doing it right. apologies for the lack of
> > schema knowledge, could you please correct me?
> > sudo ldapmodify -x -D cn=admin,cn=config -W -f hostobject.ldif
> > Enter LDAP Password:
> > modifying entry "olcDatabase={0}config,cn=config"
> > ldap_modify: Object class violation (65)
> >         additional info: attribute 'olcObjectClasses' not allowed
> > hostobject.ldif:
> > dn: olcDatabase={0}config,cn=config
> > changetype: modify
> > add: olcObjectClasses
> > olcObjectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6921.1.24 NAME 'hostobj'DESC 'Combine
> > Samba and account' SUP top MUST $ account AUXILIARY )
>
> Are you employed by Morrison Industries?  If "No" then you cannot define
> anything in "1.3.6.1.4.1.6921"
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.3.6.1.4.1.6921.html>.  You don't
> just 'make up' OIDs.  Either use an existing schema object or apply for
> a [free] OID for your own use.
> <http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page>
>
> >         We use:
> >
> >          objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6921.1.12
> >          NAME 'mHybridPerson'
> >          DESC 'Combine several objectclasses to support multiple MUAs'
> >          SUP ( inetOrgPerson $ officePerson $ evolutionPerson )
> >          STRUCTURAL )
> >
> >          objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6921.1.24
> >          NAME 'mHybridUserAccount'
> >          DESC 'Combine mHybridPerson and account'
> >          SUP ( mHybridPerson $ account )
> >          STRUCTURAL )
> >
> >         Or you can find, or define, an abstract objectclass that
> >         permits/requires the host attribute.  [Although isn't it more
> >         elegant to
> >         use groups anyway?]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to