Subject: MHS Schema

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:09:43 -0800

I think we should remove the MHS OR Address syntax from
the "core" specification.  This syntax is dependent on
RFC 1327.  RFC 1327 has been obsoleted by RFC 2156,
presently a Proposed Standard.  However, RFC 2156 is
nearly five years old and I don't see any viable effort
to revise it for Draft Standard. 

Presentation Address syntax should also be removed.  It is
dependent on RFC 1278, presently Informational.  As there
is no viable effort to bring this specification onto the
standards track, our dependency upon this specification
must be cut.  Likewise, the presentationAddressMatch rule,
the 'presentationAddress' attribute type, and the
'applicationProcess' object class should be removed.

Also, as previously discussed, the protocol information
syntax should be removed as having no defined LDAP string
encoding.  Removing dependent elements, namely
protocolInformationMatch rule, the protocolInformation
attribute type are also necessary.

Also, supportedApplicationContext should be removed as
its semantics is not well specified in RFC 2256 and it
specificaiton should likely be kept with the specification
of 'applicationProcess'.

Hence, I propose that the specification of these schema
elements be removed from the revised LDAP "core" specification
and, if desired, be progressed separately on an individual
basis.

Comments?

Kurt

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:34:51 -0500

Hi!

I think you meant to delete the applicationEntity object class, not the
applicationProcess o.c.  Should both go?

Thanks,
Kathy

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:41:17 -0800

At 01:34 PM 12/10/2002, Kathy Dally wrote:
>applicationProcess

Yes, as applicationEntity requires presentationAddress.

>o.c.  Should both go?

I haven't a good reason to remove the specification of
applicationProcess for "core".

Kurt

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:32:36 +1100

Kurt,

> to revise it for Draft Standard.

I raised this at the LDAPbis meeting. The only way to keep the
OR Address syntax in the core is to copy the specification of
its string encoding into the syntaxes draft. I really don't want
to do that. I don't think this syntax is used widely enough to
warrant it being in the core. I'll take it out of the syntaxes
draft for the next revision.
 
> must be cut.

We dealt with this syntax by drawing its string encoding into
the syntaxes draft. I would just as soon see it cut from the core.
Are the chairs ready to call consensus so I can rip it out ?

Regards,
Steven

> Likewise, the presentationAddressMatch rule,

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:05:21 -0800

>Are the chairs ready to call consensus so I can rip it out ?

I'm not.  But based upon initial WG reaction and prior discussions,
I'm fine with you ripping stuff out.  If someone makes a good
case for keeping the elements and consensus shifts, the
elements can easily be added back.

Kurt