RE: [ldapext] draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-02.txt

["Andrew Sciberras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> We have updated the draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-02.txt
> based on a round of initial reviews and we want to progress it to RFC
status.
> Before requesting the Area Director to initiate a last call, we wanted to
see if anyone has any further feedback.
 >Bruce, Kent, and Vijay.

So, do you plan to release an '03' version of this draft before requesting a
last call?
I guess I'm curious as to whether my comments (sent to the list on 19/12/03,
see below) have been taken into consideration.

Cheers,
Andrew Sciberras
Software Engineer
Adacel Technologies Ltd
250 Bay Street Brighton
t. 8530 7844
m. 0412 098 771



>G'Day,
>Just some comments regarding 'LDAP Schema for UDDI'.

>Section 5.2
>The equality matching rule for a distingushed name cannot be a
>caseIgnoreMatch.

>For the following attributes:
>* uddiName
>* uddiServiceKey
>* uddiBindingKey

>It is explicitly stated that the values of this attribute may not be blank.
>The other attributes with a DirectoryString string syntax do not carry
>this statement. I'm not sure what this is implying, but I feel that I
should
>note that none of the DirectoryString attributes are permitted to have a
>blank value.

>Section 5.17
>"When saving a new uddiBusinessService structure, pass an empty
>uddiServiceKey value"
>Section 5.18
>"When saving a new uddiBindingTemplate structure, pass an empty
>uddiBindingKey value"
>These would be strictly illegal since a DirectoryString must have at least
>one character.

>Section 5.41
>I don't think you intended to have a boolean syntax for this attribute
>Since this attribute contains an integer, perhaps an Integer syntax with an
>integerMatch equality rule would be more appropriate?

>Section 5.43
>Purhaps a Boolean syntax with a booleanMatch would be more appropriate?

>[RFC3377], [RFC2829], [RFC2830], are not listed in the Normative
>References, but are present within the document.