Subject: [schema] vs. rfc2247 replacement

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:14:57 +0100

[schema] section 1.1 says:

>   Section 3.4 of 
>   this document supercedes the technical specification for the 'dc' 
>   attribute type found in RFC 2247.[editor's note:  Substitute 
>   replacement RFC at time of publication.]   The remainder of RFC 2247 
>   remains in force.

Is rfc2247 being revised (with a "replacement RFC")?  And the
replacement will still define 'dc'?  If so, it sounds like we should
come to an agreement with them about which document is authorative for
'dc'.  In particular if [schema] gets published before the rfc2247
replacement:-)

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:48:27 -0800

>'dc'.  In particular if [schema] gets published before the rfc2247

At this point, any revision of RFC 2247 will come after [Schema]
is published.  When 2247 revision does come, it should only update
the remainder (or portion of).

The [schema] text above should be consistent with the state
of LDAP standard track documents at the time of its publication.
If one simply ignores the note, it is.   I suggest the note be
deleted when [schema] is next revised.

Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:08:57 +0100

Will [schema]'s claim to define 'dc' pass IANA at all, since the
attribute name is currently owned by someone else's RFCs?  And will the
publication [schema] be held up while IANA resolves the ownership of the
name?

Maybe also the 'uid' attribute name, though I didn't find any definiton
of that.  The definition in rfc1274 is of 'userid'.  The other RFCs I
checked just refer to that RFC even though they use the 'uid' name.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:47:50 -0800

>publication [schema] be held up while IANA resolves the ownership of the

The IANA considerations section requests the registry be updated.

>checked just refer to that RFC even though they use the 'uid' name.

uid/userid case is a bit messy.  We need to make it
clear that [Schema] provides the definitive technical
specification for this attribute type.  As I read it
now, I'm thinking the text may needs some tweaking.

Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:40 +0100

> The IANA considerations section requests the registry be updated.

Yes, I know, but my point is that this request doesn't come from the
owner of the current registration of the 'dc' name.  I would hope that
IANA doesn't just let anyone claim ownership of others' registered
descriptors.  So I'm wondering what will happen to the RFC-to-be when
its IANA considerations section reaches IANA.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:07:32 -0800

At 07:57 AM 12/12/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>owner of the current registration of the 'dc' name.

The current owner is the IESG.  This request will come, upon
Standards Action, from the IESG.

>I would hope that

Well, that's not the case here.  But, in general, I assume
they contact the current "owner" and/or the IESG for advice.

Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:23:55 -0800

>now, I'm thinking the text may needs some tweaking. 

I think the second paragraph of 1.1 should be replaced with:
   This document updates RFC 2798 by replacing the informative
   description of the 'uid' (userid) attribute type, with the
   definitive description provided in Section 2.39 of this
   document.  This 'uid' description also supercedes the
   (userid) description provided Section 3.9.1 of RFC 1274.

Also, I suggest the acknowledgements paragraphs for userid
(and dc) be rewritten:
   The 'dc' definition borrows from RFC 2247 by S. Kille,
   M. Wahl, A. Grimstad, R. Huber, and S. Sataluri.
   
   The 'uid' (userid) definition borrows from RFC 2798
   by M. Smith and RFC 1274 by P. Barker and S. Kille.

I also noticed a few nits... I'll send those directly to the
Editor.

Kurt