From: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <548DE82E.3010103@stroeder.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 12:05:11 -0800
Message-Id: <5C9BE5D8-44CA-4CFC-9D63-36C702391B87@isode.com>
References: <548DB67C.5060009@stroeder.com>
 <CF47C8D4-038D-4232-96F8-5EDE3A62C7D2@isode.com>
 <548DCA51.7080002@stroeder.com>
 <778E83EE-875A-486A-8A98-6DF3C309C292@isode.com>
 <548DE82E.3010103@stroeder.com>
To: =?windows-1252?Q?Michael_Str=F6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/yOquMpXI0PQQ0Gg__cquWDZfUNw
Cc: ldapext@ietf.org, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga@isode.com>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] why posixAccount MUST contain 'cn'?
Precedence: list


> On Dec 14, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Michael Str=F6der <michael@stroeder.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Michael Str=F6der =
<michael@stroeder.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>>>> I'd be in favour of relaxing this to MAY cn in RFC2307bis.
>>>>=20
>>>> See BCP 118 [RFC 4521], Section 5 concerning IETF rules for =
changing previously published schema definitions.
>>>=20
>>> Yes, but RFC2307bis also changes posixGroup schema.
>>=20
>> Don=92t expect I-Ds which violate BCPs to become RFCs.
>=20
> Are you saying that draft-howard-rfc2307bis will never become an RFC =
because
> it changes the declaration of 'posixGroup' ('member' instead of =
'memberUID')
> defined in the experimental RFC 2307?

I won=92t say =93never=94 as well BCPs themselves are subject today=85   =
but I can tell you that I, as the IESG=92s appointed LDAP registries =
expert to IANA, have and will reject requests to register LDAP =
parameters which purport to modify previously published LDAP schema =
definitions.  Of course, such actions are appealable.

=97 Kurt=