Subject: RE: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt

From: "Pana, Mircea" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:36:14 -0400

Larry,

I don't have a strong opinion about the booleanMatch and wrt. the
octetStringOrderingMatch I don't even see where it might be necessary.
However, the integerOrderingMatch might be critical to some policy
aplications. Therefore, as much as I'd like to see this ID progress to RFC,
I believe that the removal of the normative reference is detrimental to this
document.

I know that some Directory vendors already implement these matching rules.
The problem is that, without a normative document, each vendor might
implement different behavior for the same rule...

Mircea.

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 2:33 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: RFC Editor; Randy Bush; [email-masked]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed
Ellesson
Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt

I raised the following points last week, but didn't get a rise
out of anybody...

draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 uses three matching rules which
haven't been explicitly defined as standard LDAP matching rules. They
are booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.
These matching rules are the subject of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-
16's dependence upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.

What does "adapted for use in LDAP" mean for those matching rules?
According to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, the "adaptation" is
little more than a restatement of the X.520 definitions. Obviously,
X.520 provides the consensus-supported definitions for booleanMatch,
integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.

Some LDAP-conformant server implementations already support
booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch in
conformance with their X.520 definitions. Does it matter that these
X.520-defined matching rules are not yet defined in an LDAP-specific
RFC? The server doesn't care. The schema doesn't care. The applications
which use the server and the schema don't care, either.

Rough consensus and working code, right? How could consensus get any
better for these three matching rules than it already is? I realize that
Kurt, the ldapbis WG, and the IETF are working very hard to make LDAP
more concise, precise, and complete. This is Good Work. But in the case
of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 and these three matching rules, if
the subject of the normative reference at issue here isn't immediately
forthcoming, there really isn't a good reason for draft-ietf-policy-
core-schema-16 to wait any longer.

If draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema still has serious issues, why not
defer to pragmatism, drop the reference, and move on?

Larry

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 05/05/03 12:59:
> RFC-Editor (and policy FW WG)
> 
> As far as my current understanding of the issues, it is NOT
> acceptable to remove this normative reference.
> 
> I am working in the IESG to try and get that normative document
> approved. But there are still serious issues with it, so things
> are not going smooth/fast.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: RFC Editor [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: maandag 5 mei 2003 19:35
>>To: Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
>>Cc: [email-masked]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed Ellesson; RFC Editor;
>>[email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
>>
>>
>>Bert and Randy,
>>
>>Could you please let us know if removal of the normative reference is
>>an acceptable resolution to unblocking
>><draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt>? 
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>RFC Editor
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:38:43AM -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote:
>>
>>>Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 04/10/03 07:26:
>>>
>>>>It has been more than five months since we were advised that the
>>>>PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published?
>>>>
>>>

-- 
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz                           |                              |
#  [email-masked]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
#  voice (317) 226-7060                 |                              |
#  FAX   (317) 226-6378                 |                              |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy
_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

---

From: "Larry S. Bartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 11:11:48 -0500

Mircea, all,

Reference to X.520 (for which there is already a normative reference
in the draft) is the *only* normative reference which is necessary to
cover the three matching rules.

X.520 defines booleanMatch, octetStringOrderingMatch, and
integerOrderingMatch.

Where draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema speaks of these three matching
rules, it does little more than re-state X.520. There is no doubt
about consensus regarding the origins and semantics of booleanMatch,
octetStringOrderingMatch, and integerOrderingMatch.

To remove the normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema
is simply to remove a redundancy. Removing the normative reference to
draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema does not leave draft-ietf-policy-core
-schema-16 without a normative reference for the three matching rules.

Larry

---

From: "Larry S. Bartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 07:57:15 -0500

Now it has been *six* months since the PCLS (Policy Core LDAP Schema)
draft entered the RFC Editor's Queue. When will the RFC be published?

I haven't seen a convincing argument for retaining PCLS's dependency
upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.

Larry

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:15:56 -0400

At the moment I am still operating on the assumption that the IESG will get 
the user schema document unstuck.  We went through a lot of discussion in 
earlier reviews to arrive at the agreement that we would use that document 
as the basis for those aspects of our LDAP work.
I am loath to attempt to change that conclusion unless the AD informs us 
that the zeilenga document will not be going forward.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern