Subject: [ldapext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-stroeder-namedobject-00.txt

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:45:10 +0100

HI!

Please review this draft intended to be published as informational RFC.

Ciao, Michael.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-stroeder-namedobject-00.txt
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:42:04 -0800
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-stroeder-namedobject-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Michael Ströder and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-stroeder-namedobject
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Structural Object
Classes for Named Objects
Creation date:	 2012-12-16
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stroeder-namedobject-00.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stroeder-namedobject
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stroeder-namedobject-00

Abstract:
   This document defines structural object classes that can be used when
   no other structural object class seems suitable.  Especially the
   object classes will give the possibility to associate a common name
   and a free-from description with the object.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Charlie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:38:48 -0500

Free-from?  Did you mean free-form?

--Charlie

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Michael Ströder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
>

---

From: Andrew Sciberras <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:26:06 +1100

Hi Michael

I think further clarification is required in regards to the namedPolicy
object and the potential removal of the pwdPolicy example.

The pwdPolicy object class is an auxiliary object class that is associated
with a subentry.
I don't think that it's a good example to use in this case because you
wouldn't use the pwdPolicy object class in association with a non-subentry
object. If pwdPolicy was used with an object such as the namedPolicy
object, then I wouldn't expect the policy to work or be applied at all.

I think that it would be good to elaborate further on the intended usage of
the namedPolicy object and why it exists and is required in separation of
the namedObject object.

Andrew Sciberras

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stroeder-namedobject

-- 

*Andrew Sciberras CISSP
*Managing Consultant

Suite 1, 85 - 87 Charles St, Kew 3101 VIC

*t *+61 3 9851 8633
*e * [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
*w *www.eb2bcom.com
*ln *LinkedIn <http://au.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-sciberras/2/223/876>

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:38:00 +0100

Andrew,

Andrew Sciberras wrote:
> I think further clarification is required in regards to the namedPolicy object
> and the potential removal of the pwdPolicy example. 
> 
> object.
> If pwdPolicy was used with an object such as the namedPolicy object,
> then I wouldn't expect the policy to work or be applied at all.

Hmm, there are LDAP server implementations where you use 'pwdPolicy' as
auxiliary object class with normal directory entries, not subentries.

> the namedPolicy object and why it exists and is required in separation of the
> namedObject object. 

I've added this text to the next version of the draft to section 'namedPolicy':

      The rationale for an extra structural object class is to have
      the possibility to associate a specific set of policy-related
      auxiliary object classes without having to restrict the more
      general 'namedObject' class.

(I'm a big fan of DIT content rules...)

Ciao, Michael.