Subject: <draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-07.txt>

From: David Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:12:34 +0100

Guys

I know that I am opening an old discussion here that took place last
year, but, whilst browsing throught the IANA registered numbers I came
across the DN table that folks were hypothesing existed last year and
was referred to in RFC 1779, but did not seem to know where it was. See

http://www.iana.org/assignments/directory-system-names

This IANA table provides the mechanism for dynamically adding new
attribute type name strings without changing the RFC. This was the
original intention of RFC 1779 I believe.

I would like to suggest that the following changes are made to dn-07.txt

i) we update the IANA table at the URL above. I note that it was last
updated in May 2001 (but I dont know by whom) but its list does not hold
all the attributes listed in dn-07

iii) we edit dn-07 to say that new name strings can be found in the IANA
register, and only if they are not in the RFC or the IANA table do we
use the OID encoding for attribute types.

thankyou

David

-- 
*****************************************************************

David W. Chadwick, BSc PhD
Professor of Information Systems Security
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel: +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile: +44 77 96 44 7184
Email: [email-masked]
Home Page:  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Research Projects: http://sec.isi.salford.ac.uk
Understanding X.500:  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars: http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string: MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
PGP Key ID is 0xBC238DE5

*****************************************************************

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:23:06 -0800

At 08:12 AM 2002-04-01, David Chadwick wrote:
>year,

I agree that that this discussion has already taken place.
Here is a summary of what I believe, as document editor
(e.g. not chair), is WG consensus with regards to
draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt.

We discussed what RFC 2253 meant when it said a 'published table'
and why interoperability depended on protocol peers using a
common table.  I believe the WG consensus was that RFC 2253
should be clarified that 'published table' is that table it
provides.  The WG also reached consensus that 'alternative tables'
could be used between agreeing protocol peers.  The DN I-D
reflects this consensus.

Kurt

---

From: David Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:07:41 +0100

> could be used between agreeing protocol peers.  The DN I-D

So how are these alternative tables agreed upon? You surely are not
going to say "by private means" are you? That does not sound like a good
answer for an open Internet standard. I think that the original
intention of IANA publishing an agreed upon internationally recognised
extensible list is much better than private arrangements. However, if
you want to go the private route, then the PKIX group can surely define
its own table to be used by PKI LDAP servers and clients and publish
this in an RFC cant it?

David