Subject: [Ldap-dir] Request for Review by LDAP directorate

From: "Neal-Joslin, Robert (HP-UX Lab R&D)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:33:47 -0500

Hello,
 
This is a request for review of the following draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-joslin-config-schema-16.txt.
This draft proposes a new schema and a specific use case of that schema
for configuration of multiple directory user agents.  This draft is
currently implmented in whole or in large part by LDAP integration
agents on the HP-UX and Solaris OSes, as well in smaller-part by other
OSes and applications.
 
This draft is currently under a 2-week expert review period for IANA
descriptor registration per BCP 64.  However, during a previous review,
Kurt recommended passing this draft by the LDAP directorate.  Any
feedback is welcome.  I'd like to submit this draft to the RFC Editor in
a week or two after the Expert Review period expires (which is Sept. 25,
2006, if I'm right).
 
Thanks,
 
Bob Neal-Joslin
 
_______________________________________________
Ldap-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldap-dir

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:42:14 -0700

Bob,

First, I note that I have not reviewed this document in-depth.
I simply don't have time at present to do that.  I hope to find
some time in the new couple of weeks to at least review the
security considerations section in-depth.  My gut says this
section likely needs more work. 

Anyways, here are a few comments based on my quick scan.

It would be good for the document to indicate the track the
document's authors intend to have it published on.  I suggest
providing indication in the main header and/or status of this
memo section.  As some of normative references have Informational
status, I assume this document is not intended for the Standards
Track.

The references [RFC4510] should be normative.

It might would be good for this document to briefly discuss
how the schema it defines relates to searchGuide/enhancedSearchGuide
schema [RFC4519].

I noticed that all of the matching rules are defined with only
an equality matching rule.  If you have not done so already,
you should consider, for each, the appropriateness of adding ordering
and/or substrings matching.  For instance, it seems ordering rule
for attributes of syntax integer might be appropriate.  Section
5.3 of RFC 4523 provides some consideration which should, if
you haven't already, consider.

Regards, Kurt

At 11:33 AM 9/14/2006, Neal-Joslin, Robert (HP-UX Lab R&D) wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6D82C.511534F3"
>
>Hello,
> 
>This is a request for review of the following draft: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-joslin-config-schema-16.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-joslin-config-schema-16.txt.  This draft proposes a new schema and a specific use case of that schema for configuration of multiple directory user agents.  This draft is currently implmented in whole or in large part by LDAP integration agents on the HP-UX and Solaris OSes, as well in smaller-part by other OSes and applications.
> 
>This draft is currently under a 2-week expert review period for IANA descriptor registration per BCP 64.  However, during a previous review, Kurt recommended passing this draft by the LDAP directorate.  Any feedback is welcome.  I'd like to submit this draft to the RFC Editor in a week or two after the Expert Review period expires (which is Sept. 25, 2006, if I'm right).
> 
>Thanks,
> 
>Bob Neal-Joslin
>

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:06:18 -0700

At 09:34 AM 9/26/2006, Neal-Joslin, Robert (HP-UX Lab R&D) wrote:
><rfc category="info" ipr="full3978"
>docName="draft-joslin-config-schema-16.txt">

I don't use xml2rfc... so cannot offer help here.  If nothing
else, you can just add a sentence to the status of memo
section.

>Hmm...  OK I'm happy to change.  But I'm not totally sure why it needs
>to be normative.  I thought I had only used it once and merely to
>explain what the LDAP protocol is.

Because knowledge and understanding of the LDAP Technical
Specification [RFC4510] is necessary to understand and implement
this (or any) LDAP extension specification.  That is,
all LDAP extensions specification should include a
normative reference to the LDAP Technical Specification.
The reference also served to specify which version (and
version revision) of LDAP is being extended.

-- Kurt