IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Policy] PCELS draft

Marcus Brunner <brunner@ccrle.nec.de> Mon, 09 February 2004 13:28 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17855 for <policy-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqBSJ-0006K6-PA for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:28:08 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19DS7lk024276 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:28:07 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqBSD-0006Iw-4P; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:28:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqBRH-0006Gv-FB for policy@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:27:03 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17827 for <policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqBRG-00053n-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:27:02 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqBQM-0004zu-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:26:07 -0500
Received: from tokyo.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.2] helo=tokyo.ccrle.nec.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqBPi-0004qM-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:25:26 -0500
Received: from tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i19DOqZY056466 for <policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:24:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from defang@localhost) by tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id i19DOo5H056464 for <policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:24:50 +0100 (CET)
X-Authentication-Warning: tokyo.ccrle.nec.de: defang set sender to <brunner@ccrle.nec.de> using -f
Received: from venus.office (venus.office [10.1.1.11]) by pluto.office (8.12.9/8.12.9+MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id i19DOnZU056461; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.1.1.130] (brunner.office [10.1.1.130]) by venus.office (Postfix on SuSE Linux eMail Server 3.0) with ESMTP id BBFA125064; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:24:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:48 +0100
From: Marcus Brunner <brunner@ccrle.nec.de>
Reply-To: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, mpana@metasolv.com
Cc: policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Policy] PCELS draft
Message-ID: <2918566.1076336688@[10.1.1.130]>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040206185214.0483d688@127.0.0.1>
References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040206185214.0483d688@127.0.0.1>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy>, <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Policy Framework <policy.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy>, <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kurt,
> 1) I noticed a number of RFC 2252 schema definitions
> (e.g., pcelsIsMirrored) not accompanied by prose which detailed
> the schema element.  While an RFC 2252 schema definition should
> be provided for each schema element, providing such should not
> be viewed by itself to provide a complete technical
> specification of the schema element.  The prose needs to detail
> all aspects of the schema element, such as application syntax
> and semantics, not covered in the RFC 2252 schema definition.
> It is also good to echo aspects of the RFC 2252 schema definition
> in the prose.
>

The lack of prose at various elements is due to the fact that the prose is 
written down in the Information Model (RFC 3460). We don't feel like 
duplicating all of it.

Marcus


_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email