Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 07:36:17 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the LDAP (v3) Revision Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: LDAP: Directory Information Models
	Author(s)	: K. Zeilenga
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt
	Pages		: 46
	Date		: 2002-12-3
	
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is an Internet
protocol for accessing distributed directory services which act in
accordance with X.500 data and service models.  This document
describes the X.500 Directory Information Models.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:41:37 -0800

This draft attempts to address two major issues:
  1) "short name" requirements
  2) subschema subentries are for schema discovery/administration,
     not DSA-specific feature discovery.

Resolution of 1) was basically as discussed on the list, but (as
noted at IETF#55) the requirement that "short names" be registered
is really an IANA consideration, not an implementation requirement.
So, while this revision presently contains this IANA consideration,
that consideration really belongs in the BCP 64.  It's temporarily
in this document so that the requirement can be reviewed now (as
opposed to waiting for a BCP64bis I-D).

Resolution of 2) required dropping requirements that servers
publish certain schema elements if and only if they support
some feature associated with those elements.

A number of editorial changes were also made...  unless someone
raises significant issue with this revision, I plan to ask Bob
(who serves as sole chair in regards to this I-D) to issue a WG
Last Call on it.

Kurt

At 04:36 AM 2002-12-04, [email-masked] wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-ID:     <[email-masked]>
>
>ENCODING mime
>FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt
>
><ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-04.txt>

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:01:01 +0100

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> unless someone raises significant issue with this revision, I plan to
> ask Bob (who serves as sole chair in regards to this I-D) to issue a
> WG Last Call on it.

With the other drafts so unfinished?  What if e.g. an Authmeth issue
comes up later which is best handled in Models?

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:07:22 -0800

At 07:01 AM 2002-12-07, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>With the other drafts so unfinished?

Yes, as we've done with the other WG drafts.

>What if e.g. an Authmeth issue comes up later which is best handled in Models?

We address it... just as we would other new issues that might
pop up after WG Last Call.  A last call though helps us close
out old issues.

Think of a WG Last Call on each of the individual I-Ds as
establishing where we have consensus... (and where we don't).

When we're done with all document, then we'll do a "grand"
Last Call to be sure that everything "works" together.

Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:16:56 +0100

Thanks.  I feel much better now:-)

-- 
Hallvard