Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02>
Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@isode.com> Sat, 08 August 1992 14:09 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05618; 8 Aug 92 10:09 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05614; 8 Aug 92 10:09 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aj08676; 8 Aug 92 10:10 EDT
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.09545-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 6 Aug 1992 20:27:18 +0100
Received: from localhost by glengoyne.isode.com with SMTP (PP) id <03908-0@glengoyne.isode.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 1992 19:53:42 +0100
To: sri@qsun.att.com
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, Dave Piscitello <dave@sabre.bellcore.com>, Erik Huizer <huizer@surfnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02>
Phone: +44-71-223-4062
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 31 Jul 92 14:54:00 -0400. <199207311857.AA00769@venera.isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 19:53:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3906.713127219@isode.com>
From: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
Sri, >From: sri@qsun.att.com >To: ietf@ISI.EDU >Subject: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02> >Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 14:54 EDT >----------------- > >1 Why a notation is needed > For example, the OSF Syntax may be more appropriate for some system > oriented uses. > > Please provide a short description of the OSF Syntax or a > reference or both. I do not have a citable document. If someone can send me a detailed reference, I will add it (anyone from OSF listening?). > >2.1 Goals > > The goals are quite fuzzy and need elaboration. What is meant by > terms like, "intuitive", "fully general", "lay it out in a number > of ways", and "clear representation"? I believe that these are all important goals. I feel that all (except perhaps the last) are self explanatory, but I'm very hapy to add some text if you feel that this will improve the document. > > I think an important goal should be an unambiguous representation > of a distinguished name. Agreed. I thought that this was there. Will add. > >2.3 Formal definition > > There is an escape mechanism. > Escape mechanism to what? Is it escaping from the quoting > mechanism? Yes. Will add some text. > > The keyword specification is optional. > What keyword specification is optional? You do not give any > references and do not define the terms before using them. Will add a reference. > >Figure 1: > Caption: BNF Grammar for Distinguished and Purported Name > What is a "Purported Name"? This term was not used any other place > in the document. A hangover from the UFN spec (which uses the same BNF). Will remove this reference. > > Figure 1 is the heart of the paper. Unfortunately, the BNF > notation you use is not obvious to me. Can you point to a > reference where it is defined or better yet, please give a short > description so that the RFC will be self contained. For instance, > what does 2*<hexchar> mean? What do parentheses signify. I am > sorry it is not clear to me. This has developed as a personal BNF style.... I should define it. Basically, it is the RFC 822 BNF, with <> around the terminal symbols. > >3 Examples > > OU=Dover Beach Consulting > I think must read, > O=Dover Beach Consulting > > OU=University College London > I think must read, > O=University College London Yes. > >----------- My General Comments ------------- > > This RFC draft assumes extensive background knowledge. It will be > helpful if you specify what is expected of your reader. The paper > specifies a notation for Distinguished Names. However a > Distinguished Name itself does not appear any where in the paper. I > think that you should write out a distinguished name and point a > reference to the reader to find out how it came about. I'm not quite sure how to write out a distinguished name! I believe that the reference to X.500 is relevant. This specification is fairly meaningless unless you konw X.500 > > Does the specification meet all the goals laid out in section 2? It meets goals 2 and 3. Goals 1 and 4 are subjective, but I believe that it meets them in the context of practical deployment of X.500 to date. > >-sri (Srinivas R. Sataluri, AT&T Bell Labs., 908-949-7782, sri@qsun.att.com) thanks for these useful comments Steve
- Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02> Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02> Tom Tignor
- Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02> Tom Tignor