Re: [nfsv4] LDAP Registry rules and sub-namespaces (Re: Last call for NSDB Protocol for Federated Filesystems (Oct 4 - Oct 22nd))

["Everhart, Craig" <[e-mail]>]

That feels about right to me.  Perhaps the fedfsAnnotation and
fedfsDescr fields would simply be removed in favor of such a schema use.

Rob, would you be interested in proposing some text defining your
proposed hint of a mount path?  That attribute could be the first entity
in such a set of schema uses?  Something like a "fedfsMountHint" name
and OID?

		Craig

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:10 PM
> To: Everhart, Craig
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: LDAP Registry rules and sub-namespaces (Re: [nfsv4] Last call
> for NSDB Protocol for Federated Filesystems (Oct 4 - Oct 22nd))
> 
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:41:58AM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > IANA registries are cheap (to us, WG participants anyways).
> >
> > I'd rather use LDAP schema for this than an LDAP attribute with
> > key/value pairs as values.  We might be able to get a sub-namespace
> of
> > LDAP attribute/class names (all those starting with "fedFs", say) to
> > have different rules than LDAP as a whole, if the WG feels that
> strongly
> > about preventing semantic overlap.
> 
> RFC4520 sets up the IANA LDAP parameters registry.  Among other
things:
> 
>  - RFC4520 allows registration of attribute and class name prefixes
>    (prefixes must end in '-').
> 
>  - RFC4520 requires Expert Review for attribute/class names.  (Note
>    though that one can identify attributes and classes by OID instead
> of
>    name, and no registration of private OIDs is required in the LDAP
>    registry.)
> 
>  - RFC4520 allows for private use (unregistered) and experimental use
>    (first come first served) sub-namespaces for attribute and class
>    names (x- and e-, respectively).
> 
> I believe we can register the 'fedfs-' prefix and create a registry
> with
> whatever rules the NFSv4 WG prefers for attribute/class names starting
> with that prefix.
> 
> My personal preference is for Expert Review and/or Specification
> Required.  If the WG preferred something stronger than I would suggest
> Standards Action.
> 
> Nico
> --