+++ /dev/null
-# $OpenLDAP$
-
-# These are definitions from the North American Directory Forum
-# They were taken 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