--- /dev/null
+# $OpenLDAP$
+
+# These are definitions from the North American Directory Forum
+# They are intended to be used with QUIPU/X.500 not LDAPv3.
+# Your mileage may vary.
+
+# They were acquired from ftp://ftp.gte.com/pub/nadf/nadf-docs/sd-04.ps
+# Our thanks to Harald T. Alvestrand that provided the pointer.
+
+# This is a preliminary version and is likely to be incorrect in
+# a number of areas
+
+# The root for OIDs is joint-iso-ccitt mhs-motis(6) group(6) grimstad(5)
+# nadf(2). In othor words, barring any error, 2.6.6.5.2. Then,
+# nadfOink ::= 2.6.6.5.2.0
+# nadfModule ::= 2.6.6.5.2.1
+# nadfAttributeType ::= 2.6.6.5.2.4
+# nadfObjectClass ::= 2.6.6.5.2.6
+
+# Attribute Type Definition
+
+# The spec says "leading zero is significant". Is this really a
+# numeric string?
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.1 NAME 'fipsStateNumericCode'
+ EQUALITY numericStringMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36{2} )
+
+# It is probably inconvenient to give this attribute that syntax
+# (Printable String) instead of Directory String.
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.2 NAME 'fipsStateAlphaCode'
+ EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44{2} )
+
+# The spec says "leading zeros are significant". Is this really a
+# numeric string?
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.3 NAME 'fipsCountyNumericCode'
+ EQUALITY numericStringMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36{5} )
+
+# It seems that fips55 is fipsPlaceNumericCode, is this so?
+
+# The spec says "leading zeros are significant". Is this really a
+# numeric string?
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.4 NAME ( 'fipsPlaceNumericCode' 'fips55' )
+ EQUALITY numericStringMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36{5} )
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.5 NAME 'ansiOrgNumericCode'
+ EQUALITY integerMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )
+
+# Apparently, 'ad' is an alias for 'addmdName'
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.6 NAME ( 'addmdName' 'ad' )
+ EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
+
+# I don't know what syntax to give this. I will use binary for the
+# time being.
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.7 NAME 'nadfSearchGuide'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 )
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.8 NAME 'supplementaryInformation'
+ EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{76} )
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.9 NAME 'namingLink'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 )
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.10 NAME 'reciprocalNamingLink'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
+ SINGLE-VALUE )
+
+# Numbers 11 to 14 are obsolete
+
+# Next one is unused. BTW, this attribute is supposed to be
+# case-exact match, but we cannot make that match unless we
+# define the string with IA5 syntax and we don't have a
+# clear base for this.
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.15 NAME 'logicalDSAReference'
+ EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
+
+attributetype ( 2.6.6.5.2.4.16 NAME 'multiMediaInformation'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 )
+
+# Number 17, 18 and 19 are EDI-related attributes for the nadfEDIUser
+# class that we did not have and has been left out below.
+
+# Object classes
+
+# According to the intended use described in section 3.3.1 in the spec,
+# this can only be ABSTRACT.
+# We had lastModifiedTime as 'allows', but sd-04 has it as MUST.
+# We did not have multiMediaInformation neither on this class nor
+# on any of its derived classes.
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.7 NAME 'nadfObject' SUP top ABSTRACT
+ MUST lastModifiedTime
+ MAY ( multiMediaInformation $ nadfSearchGuide $
+ supplementaryInformation ) )
+
+# I think all classes derived from locality should be considered
+# STRUCTURAL, since locality is.
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.1 NAME 'usStateOrEquivalent'
+ SUP ( locality $ nadfObject ) STRUCTURAL
+ MUST ( l $ fipsStateNumericCode $ fipsStateAlphaCode $ st ) )
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.2 NAME 'usPlace'
+ SUP ( locality $ nadfObject ) STRUCTURAL
+ MUST ( l $ fipsPlaceNumericCode ) )
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.3 NAME 'usCountyOrEquivalent' SUP usPlace STRUCTURAL
+ MUST fipsCountyNumericCode )
+
+# applicationEntity is STRUCTURAL, so we will declare this one the same
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.5 NAME 'nadfApplicationEntity'
+ SUP applicationEntity STRUCTURAL
+ MUST supportedApplicationContext )
+
+# Following our heuristic, this one will be STRUCTURAL since organization
+# is too. We did not have 'o' as 'requires', but if this is really a
+# subclass of organization, then 'o' becomes MUST by inheritance
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.6 NAME 'nadfADDMD'
+ SUP ( organization $ nadfObject ) STRUCTURAL
+ MUST addmdName )
+
+# Number 7 is nadfObject described above.
+
+# This one quacks like an AUXILIARY object class
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.8 NAME 'publicObject' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST namingLink )
+
+# And so does this one
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.9 NAME 'providerObject' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST reciprocalNamingLink )
+
+# The spec says number 10 is obsolete
+
+# This one also strongly smells like AUXILIARY
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.11 NAME 'fips55Object' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST fipsPlaceNumericCode
+ MAY st )
+
+# The spec says numbers 12 to 18 are obsolete
+
+# Another obviously AUXILIARY class
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.19 NAME 'nationalObject' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST c )
+
+# So is this one
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.20 NAME 'ansiOrgObject' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST ansiOrgNumericCode )
+
+# We did not have the next one, but it is innocuous
+
+objectclass ( 2.6.6.5.2.6.21 NAME 'caProvinceOrTerritory'
+ SUP ( locality $ nadfObject ) STRUCTURAL
+ MUST st )
+
+# According to the spec, numbers 22, 23 and 24 are obsolete
+
+# Number 25 was nadfEDIuser as a subclass of edi-user. Sorry we cannot
+# deal with this one and we did not have it anyway.
projects / openldap / commitdiff