Subject: Re: names of RFC references (was: models-09 comments)

From: "Roger Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:59:14 -0700

I haven't seen any further comments on this subject, so I'll jump in.
I've attempted to at least make AuthMeth consistent with itself and with
Protocol in the -10 draft by using descriptive names for all
references.
 
I had assumed that since we are using descriptive names for the LDAP TS
that it would make sense to use them everywhere. I realize that the RFC
editor could replace descriptive names of LDAP TS  docs with their RFCs
as the RFC numbers are assigned, but I'd prefer leaving descriptive
names throughout.
 
Roger

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 1/8/2004 1:46:32 PM
>>>
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 09:39 AM 1/7/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if the LDAPbis documents had more or less
>> the same reference names for the same documents, at least
>> for references to LDAPbis documents.
>
> Yes. I hope we can leave it to the Editors to determine
> exactly what LDAPBIS style is.

Yes, I'd have posted this to the ietf-ldapbis-editors mailinglist if
it
existed:-)

>> I'll post a list of differences between reference names is
>> anyone is interested.
>
> Pointing out differences in style (where it matters) is
> useful.

I don't know what of this matters, but:

Reference name styles:

[BCP64bis], [LDAPDN], [LDAPURL], [Models], [Roadmap], [Schema],
[Strprep] use document numbers: [RFC2234], [X.690].

[Protocol] uses descriptive names: [ABNF], [BER].

[AuthMeth] prefers document numbers, but also has [ABNF] and [UTF-8].

[Filters] uses document numbers for RFCs, but also has [ASN.1].

[Syntaxes] uses descriptive names, except it also needs names like
[BCP64], [RFC2256] for older documents.

Nobody call [X.500], [T.50] & co anything interesting:-)

[Syntaxes] and partly [Schema] use uppercased descriptive names
for internet-drafts and RFCs. The other documents do not.

Name conflict:

[Filters] calls X.690 '[ASN.1]', while [Protocol] and [Syntaxes] call
X.680 '[ASN.1]'. That is confusing. I suggest [Filters] calls X.690
[BER], as [Protocol] and [Syntaxes] do.

URL styles:

[LDAPDN] uses the approximate URL < http://www.iana.org/ ...>.
[BCP64bis] only refers to the web site < http://www.iana.org/ > for
the
registry (outside a reference). URLs in other places, including IANA
URLs, are complete.

Other details:

The [UTF-8] or [UTF8] reference is outdated in many drafts.
It is now an RFC, not an internet-draft:
Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
STD 63 and RFC 3629, November 2003.

Reference descriptions in [LDAPURL], [Filters] and partly [AuthMeth]
are not indented out from the reference names, which makes searching
for a reference slower.

Some reference names are also descriptive words in the text, which
will be lost if the reference is renamed. E.g. the phrases '[UTF-8]
encoded' in [AuthMeth] and '[TLS]-protected' in [Protocol]. I'll
scan for more if you are interested.

The reference name [BCP64bis] will have to be renamed, since the
name implies an unfinished document. Hopefully it will be finished
someday:-)

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:42 -0500

Roger Harrison wrote:
> Protocol in the -10 draft by using descriptive names for all references.
>  

I like descriptive names.  On the other hand, [RFC####] names are very 
precise.  I think everyone agress that we should be consistent across 
all of the LDAPBIS documents.  Someone should just decide which approach 
we will use ;-)

-Mark