Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt

["Larry S. Bartz" <[e-mail]>]

Mircea, all,

Reference to X.520 (for which there is already a normative reference
in the draft) is the *only* normative reference which is necessary to
cover the three matching rules.

X.520 defines booleanMatch, octetStringOrderingMatch, and
integerOrderingMatch.

Where draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema speaks of these three matching
rules, it does little more than re-state X.520. There is no doubt
about consensus regarding the origins and semantics of booleanMatch,
octetStringOrderingMatch, and integerOrderingMatch.

To remove the normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema
is simply to remove a redundancy. Removing the normative reference to
draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema does not leave draft-ietf-policy-core
-schema-16 without a normative reference for the three matching rules.

Larry


Pana, Mircea wrote, On 05/06/03 10:36:
> Larry,
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion about the booleanMatch and wrt. the
> octetStringOrderingMatch I don't even see where it might be necessary.
> However, the integerOrderingMatch might be critical to some policy
> aplications. Therefore, as much as I'd like to see this ID progress to RFC,
> I believe that the removal of the normative reference is detrimental to this
> document.
> 
> I know that some Directory vendors already implement these matching rules.
> The problem is that, without a normative document, each vendor might
> implement different behavior for the same rule...
> 
> Mircea.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: RFC Editor; Randy Bush; [e-mail]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed
> Ellesson
> Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
> 
> 
> I raised the following points last week, but didn't get a rise
> out of anybody...
> 
> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 uses three matching rules which
> haven't been explicitly defined as standard LDAP matching rules. They
> are booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.
> These matching rules are the subject of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-
> 16's dependence upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.
> 
> What does "adapted for use in LDAP" mean for those matching rules?
> According to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, the "adaptation" is
> little more than a restatement of the X.520 definitions. Obviously,
> X.520 provides the consensus-supported definitions for booleanMatch,
> integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.
> 
> Some LDAP-conformant server implementations already support
> booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch in
> conformance with their X.520 definitions. Does it matter that these
> X.520-defined matching rules are not yet defined in an LDAP-specific
> RFC? The server doesn't care. The schema doesn't care. The applications
> which use the server and the schema don't care, either.
> 
> Rough consensus and working code, right? How could consensus get any
> better for these three matching rules than it already is? I realize that
> Kurt, the ldapbis WG, and the IETF are working very hard to make LDAP
> more concise, precise, and complete. This is Good Work. But in the case
> of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 and these three matching rules, if
> the subject of the normative reference at issue here isn't immediately
> forthcoming, there really isn't a good reason for draft-ietf-policy-
> core-schema-16 to wait any longer.
> 
> If draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema still has serious issues, why not
> defer to pragmatism, drop the reference, and move on?
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 05/05/03 12:59:
> 
>>RFC-Editor (and policy FW WG)
>>
>>As far as my current understanding of the issues, it is NOT
>>acceptable to remove this normative reference.
>>
>>I am working in the IESG to try and get that normative document
>>approved. But there are still serious issues with it, so things
>>are not going smooth/fast.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Bert 
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: RFC Editor [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: maandag 5 mei 2003 19:35
>>>To: Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
>>>Cc: [e-mail]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed Ellesson; RFC Editor;
>>>[e-mail]
>>>Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>Bert and Randy,
>>>
>>>Could you please let us know if removal of the normative reference is
>>>an acceptable resolution to unblocking
>>><draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt>? 
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>RFC Editor
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:38:43AM -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 04/10/03 07:26:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It has been more than five months since we were advised that the
>>>>>PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published?
>>>>>
>>>>
> 
> 


-- 
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz                           |                              |
#  [e-mail]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
#  voice [phone]                 |                              |
#  FAX   [phone]                 |                              |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy